A great question about climate change and a great response

[bladeXcrasher]

Sigh.

You know that slave owners used to have sex with their slaves, right?

Maybe if you gusy understood what racism actually was you wouldn't be screaming it doesn;t exist and supporting douche canoes like milo or Trump or Bannon or Putin, etc.

You know why they did that?

- - - Updated - - -

As said in other threads, when a 19th century dude, fireeaters or proponent of colonialism, droned on and on about racial purity and one the natives were animals inferior to the white man, you can be sure he was fathering children with the ''maids''.

Colonialism would be 18th century and racism didn't exist as a term.

[Darkeon]

Sigh.

You know that slave owners used to have sex with their slaves, right?

Maybe if you gusy understood what racism actually was you wouldn't be screaming it doesn;t exist and supporting douche canoes like milo or Trump or Bannon or Putin, etc.

Yup, I just hate those 5,5'' brunette girls! The bigger the breasts and their intellect, the more I hate them!

[Eviscero]

100% of scientists believe the Earth is not flat. That's a suspiciously high number.

[Bloodwolf]

As I don't really have a political stance to the "right" or "left", I can most confidentially say: This guy is plain stupid.
He just said that it's not common in science that 97% of scientists agree. He is right if you are talking about short term science, science about ideas somebody just came up with. But he is wrong if you look to long term science, like classical physics, evolution-theory or climate change. We have a huge amount of data coming in about climate change, and this guy just says I've worked in an NGO, now I know everything about it, don't believe what smarter people than me are saying. If more and more people are starting to like guys like him, who just make statements out of nowhere pretending to be true, which is actually happening, it will reach a point where humanity will be doomed. This guy is incredibly good at rhetorics though.

[ati87]

100% of scientists believe the Earth is not flat. That's a suspiciously high number.

Funny thing you have people thinking that the earth isn't round

[Snorkles]

Is the obsession with him being Gay and a Jew supposed to be ironic? Like a jab at identity politics or something?

[Darkeon]

100% of scientists believe the Earth is not flat. That's a suspiciously high number.

While I don't agree with, what I take, it's his ultimate message - back at one point in time, the vast majority also believed Earth was not round and was the centre of universe. If we had gone by the "majority agrees, let's all settle and agree too", we'd be in for a big surprise later on!

[Kraenen]

You know that slave owners used to have sex with their slaves, right?

Maybe if you gusy understood what racism actually was you wouldn't be screaming it doesn;t exist and supporting douche canoes like milo or Trump or Bannon or Putin, etc.

You know that's not an actual argument right?

I'm a Milo/Trump/Bannon/Putin supporter now? rofl. Every post you make, man, just a new level of ignorance.

[Kalis]

So he is a Nazi and a climate denier.

When you use words that you clearly don't understand the meaning of, in this case 'Nazi', then it makes your arguments appear to be based on trying to demonise your opponent and not on anything they have said.


OT:I disagree with his conclusions. I can see how him not trusting Climate Change organisations could be an issue, especially as he bases that on personal experience, but he didn't answer the question on scientific consensus adequately.

People do need to understand that denying the manmade effects on Climate Change is only really a US Republican Party issue, where it is a political thing, it is not a right wing issue - Milo doesn't seem to grasp this.

In fact one of the most influential right wing politicians of the 20th Century argued that we need to do something about it, well before it was taken up as a cause by any mainstream left wing politician - at the time left wingers were protesting about the closures of coal mines. She (a clue as to which politician it was) had a degree in chemistry and was au fait with how science worked.

Sadly for science, politicians have an annoying habit of thinking they get a major say in a science debate, whereas they are supposed to debate the funding and policy of how to deal with it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm a Milo/Trump/Bannon/Putin supporter now? rofl. Every post you make, man, just a new level of ignorance.

Their go to response for anybody who doesn't scream 'TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER!' in every post, is that they must be a Trump/Bannon/Putin supporter.

They haven't even grasped that not everybody on the right likes Trump/Bannon/Putin, let alone supports them.

[Endus]

They actually don't. They've done what you just said: pause, reflect, critique, be skeptical. That's academia in the natural sciences. The people outside of science tend to believe in the majority consensus, but those working within science are the ones trying to disprove the paradigms and gain evidence either in support or against the best theory. They don't just go "well, all the other people believe this so I will". I'm sure @Endus will chime in with a better statement than mine, though.

Seriously, people don't understand what science is.

The "status quo" is under constant challenge. Scientists around the world are constantly testing and re-testing things, they're comparing data from sources to make sure they line up, they're testing other people's analyses for error, the entire system of science is based on this. Finding the magic bullet that overturns a massive theory sets you up for life, and often wins you something like a Nobel Prize.

The peer review system is explicitly antagonistic, internally. If your results can't be replicated, they will be discarded as an error. What science tells us to be true we know to be true because we keep testing it, and it keeps being true. If it didn't, we'd realize the theory we have is flawed and find the error and fix it. Which does happen, constantly. But it usually works out as a refinement of a model, where someone identifies a factor that wasn't accounted for but that they can now quantify and measure, and this reduces uncertainty in modelled predictions of complex systems. It's vanishingly rare at this late date that any evidence could emerge to overturn the massive amounts of evidence already collected, on pretty much any subject. You're not going to prove evolution "wrong", though you might improve upon our understanding of its mechanics.

When there's scientific consensus on a topic like climate change, it doesn't exist because scientists are accepting the status quo. It exists because they challenge that status quo, and the conclusions of those challenges are so clear that they all reach the same conclusions, independently. There's only one reasonable explanation that the evidence supports, and that is why there's consensus.

Much like we have consensus on the Earth being globular, not flat. And flat-earthers are nuts.
Much like we have consensus on plate tectonics and earthquakes, and know that it's not giants stomping their feet or whatever.
Climate change denial is nothing more than willful ignorance. It's precisely as inane as flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers, with a soupcon of conspiracy nuttery on top. The facts are there for anyone to see; refusing to look and give them due consideration isn't an argument.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

- - - Updated - - -

While I don't agree with, what I take, it's his ultimate message - back at one point in time, the vast majority also believed Earth was not round and was the centre of universe. If we had gone by the "majority agrees, let's all settle and agree too", we'd be in for a big surprise later on!

Except that literally no one is asking anyone to blindly accept what scientists say.

We're saying "here's the evidence, the methodologies, the analyses, and the conclusions. YOU figure out where we went wrong, if you disagree."

And nobody's provided anything approaching a rational attack on the body of theory. The evidence is available if you give enough of a shit to check. You don't have to take anything on faith, because that's not how science works. If you're not willing to put in the effort to do that kind of research, though, maybe you should realize you don't understand the subject and not express an opinion, though.

[Darkeon]

Except that literally no one is asking anyone to blindly accept what scientists say.

We're saying "here's the evidence, the methodologies, the analyses, and the conclusions. YOU figure out where we went wrong, if you disagree."

And nobody's provided anything approaching a rational attack on the body of theory. The evidence is available if you give enough of a shit to check. You don't have to take anything on faith, because that's not how science works. If you're not willing to put in the effort to do that kind of research, though, maybe you should realize you don't understand the subject and not express an opinion, though.

Is that what you took from my post? Interesting ;D

[LilSaihah]

I don't believe it's the STEM degree itself. It's the person and how s/he thinks that's being looked at. If you have such degrees how can one possibly view other sciences as a sham?

Pretty easily? There are plenty of non-biologists who believe the Bible to be, to some degree, an objectively true recount of history. Ben Carson for example is a pretty devout man, and a very accomplished surgeon, which ranks pretty well up there in STEM fields.

Unless you're talking about directly related STEM fields, i.e. people working in biology fields probably have very well-set opinions on vaccinations and evolution, it's a bit of a crapshoot.

[sarahtasher]

Pretty easily? There are plenty of non-biologists who believe the Bible to be, to some degree, an objectively true recount of history. Ben Carson for example is a pretty devout man, and a very accomplished surgeon, which ranks pretty well up there in STEM fields.

Unless you're talking about directly related STEM fields, i.e. people working in biology fields probably have very well-set opinions on vaccinations and evolution, it's a bit of a crapshoot.

It does take a degree of self delusion, however, to follow rigorously (one can hope) science in one category and have irrationnal beliefs on the other. For instance, if you are a health professional and believe vaccines are fake, you are likely have other quirks.

[LilSaihah]

It does take a degree of self delusion, however, to follow rigorously (one can hope) science in one category and have irrationnal beliefs on the other. For instance, if you are a health professional and believe vaccines are fake, you are likely have other quirks.

If you're surprised about people being irrational, I think you've got a lot to learn.

[sarahtasher]

I'm going to say that if, in 2017, you actively promote creationnism while claiming you are a scientist (in STEM), you likely got your diploma in a cereal box (or worse, at Patriot Bible College)

No, of course, you can be a surgeon and praticing christian, that's not the question. (But again, fundamentalism is odd in many things-for instance, even in the middle ages, theologians admitted that, hmm, the Bible says that the Earth is flat, but it's obviously not flat so therefore the text should not always been taken literaly)

[Underverse]

It doesn't matter. The argument is so far in favor of climate change realists that they can concede the maximum risk proposed by denialists and the reactions they propose will still be appropriate:

[Torgent]

Trigger warning: contains a christian homosexual Nazi white nationalist who fucks black men who literally quotes Mein Kampf for 10 minutes (not really).

I was promised a great response lol....Instead, he deflects to just saying "I worked for somewhere for a year, I know more than these scientists that have devoted their lives to it." and "97% is suspicious because then it seems biased and not facts". This guy is a moron and knows less than nothing about what he says. He literally thinks that scientists agreeing on an issue is suspicious. That's the kind of person the right wing worships now. Anti-intelligence.

[sarahtasher]

As the alt right lives in hatred of Muslims, should not they approve green energy ?

After all, if there is no need for the oil, the geopolitical power of most the countries they hate would collapse.


They might have been told that the electric cars are ''unmanly'', but do the realize that with electric cars, Saudia Arabia and Iran would collapse without costly wars ?

[LaserChild9]

Trigger warning: contains a christian homosexual Nazi white nationalist who fucks black men who literally quotes Mein Kampf for 10 minutes (not really).

I'm struggling to understand how it was a 'great' response. It's no better a response than the numerous times donald trump has called climate change bullshit. Just because he uses big words and pauses occasionally does not make his response logical or correct. 100% of scientists agree on many things, water is wet, the sky is blue, grass is green and storks don't bring babies, should we be suspicious of this because all of the scientists believe something?

[rogueMatthias]

Well, he's right to be sceptical of the number. The "97%" is provenly bullshit. Even some of the scientists attributed to it have come forward to say their views were misrepresented by the author of it. That's not even answering the very vague question of EXACTLY what theses 97% supposedly believed. That it's real? That it's dangerous? That it will have a minimal impact on the world a grander scale? That its going down or up? Who even are these "scientists"? The number doesn't answer these questions.

Ignoring the number - a majority of climate scientists DO AGREE with this. I agree too; From everything I've read, It's very highly probable. Even hypothetically if it's not true, who wants to live in a smoggy shit hole anyway?

The 97% is just another provocative "fact" the media throw around, to end any argument or debate. The same with calling people who disagree "deniers" to liken them to holocaust deniers; It's simply there to kill any discussion and discredit any opposition without even needing to debate or listen to other ideas.