Naomi Oreskes, the "denialists" bane

[Sea of red]

Yes, most of us aren't scientists. That's why trust is an important part of being a good scientist and an expert in general. There is (justifiably) no trust right now. I have no idea if global warming is true or not and I have no way of knowing that because there are no trustworthy institutions to inform me on the matter. Leftards infiltrate and corrupt institutions, then demand that their enemies accept them as authorities even when the corruption is blatant. In the past this sort of thing would have been perplexing but since my genius mind stumbled upon the possibility that not all humans are sentient it's a lot easier to explain. Liberals have trouble distinguishing between form and essence because you have no essence, only form. Thus, to you, everything is form because form is all you can perceive.

Thanks.

Next please.

[One Bad Pig]

Anybody want to debate the actual science, or is this just going to be another thread of everyone playing politics?

Fixed that for you.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, most of us aren't scientists. That's why trust is an important part of being a good scientist and an expert in general. There is (justifiably) no trust right now. I have no idea if global warming is true or not and I have no way of knowing that because there are no trustworthy institutions to inform me on the matter. Leftards infiltrate and corrupt institutions, then demand that their enemies accept them as authorities even when the corruption is blatant. In the past this sort of thing would have been perplexing but since my genius mind stumbled upon the possibility that not all humans are sentient it's a lot easier to explain. Liberals have trouble distinguishing between form and essence because you have no essence, only form. Thus, to you, everything is form because form is all you can perceive.

As with this issue and others it is obvious you do not trust science.

[seer]

As I thought. You have obviously no idea what you're talking about, and you couldn't care less as to whether the science is accurate. You're just an ideologue that needs to make this political, because that's what you really care about.

Sea, I will ask you again. If the predictions are so dire then why are those who are supposedly the experts, or supposedly know more than us in the unwashed masses, not changing their behavior to reflect their belief? Why should I trust what they claim? And correct I am not a climatologist, are you?

[seanD]

Sea, I will ask you again. If the predictions are so dire then why are those who are supposedly the experts, or supposedly know more than us in the unwashed masses, not changing their behavior to reflect their belief? Why should I trust what they claim? And correct I am not a climatologist, are you?

Especially when it's the wealthy political faction, and the wealthy lobbyists that drive their decisions, that will initiate the policies to curb climate change. So it is ultimately political in the end.

[Truthseeker]

Anyone who supports the prosecution of climate skeptics as evildoers cannot be a scientist. True scientists are always skeptical even of their pet theories.

[rogue06]

Don't know about the former but as for the latter, Hansen was referring to oil companies that fund people like Richard Lindzen.

So what is your problem with the science?

[shunyadragon]

Anyone who supports the prosecution of climate skeptics as evildoers cannot be a scientist. True scientists are always skeptical even of their pet theories.

I do not believe scientists are involved in this controversy.

[Sea of red]

Anyone who supports the prosecution of climate skeptics as evildoers cannot be a scientist. True scientists are always skeptical even of their pet theories.

And what makes you an arbiter of what constitutes a scientist?

[Sea of red]

How about all of the instances of conservatives stating climatologists are apart of a vast communist conspiracy? How about all of the times climatologists have been given death threats? Or maybe the time so called skeptics illegally hacked into a server in an attempt to slander two researchers?

Why do you think that those who don't think that global warming is taking place and are vocal about it should be subject to capital punishment?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[rogue06]

How about all of the instances of conservatives stating climatologists are apart of a vast communist conspiracy? How about all of the times climatologists have been given death threats? Or maybe the time so called skeptics illegally hacked into a server in an attempt to slander two researchers?

Your answer seems to suggest that you think that subjecting vocal critics of global warming to the death penalty is justified because some have called supporters of AGW "communists" and others have issued death threats.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Quite a snarky remark coming from someone who asked me "So what is your problem with the science?"

[Sea of red]

Your answer seems to suggest that you think that subjecting vocal critics of global warming to the death penalty is justified because some have called supporters of AGW "communists" and others have issued death threats.

Then you need to ask for a clarification in the future. My point was that it's not a one-way street. Plenty of people on the denial side of behaved not so nicely, yet you're not talking about that.

Quite a snarky remark coming from someone who asked me "So what is your problem with the science?"

It was a sarcastic remark for a loaded question.

[Sea of red]

Sea, I will ask you again. If the predictions are so dire then why are those who are supposedly the experts, or supposedly know more than us in the unwashed masses, not changing their behavior to reflect their belief? Why should I trust what they claim? And correct I am not a climatologist, are you?

I'm going to give you one more opportunity to demonstrate why your skepticism is justified, I won't do it again. Stop evading the question by using an ad-hominem, and just give an answer.

What is your issue with the actual science?

Anything?

[seer]

I'm going to give you one more opportunity to demonstrate why your skepticism is justified, I won't do it again. Stop evading the question by using an ad-hominem, and just give an answer.

What is your issue with the actual science?

Anything?

I don't know the actual science, I just know what I read, I am not a climatologist, are you? But this I do know, the very people that are crying the loudest are not reflecting those beliefs in practice. Every time they climb on a private jet they belie their claims. If they don't take it seriously why should I?

[Sea of red]

I don't know the actual science, I just know what I read, I am not a climatologist, are you? But this I do know, the very people that are crying the loudest are not reflecting those beliefs in practice. Every time they climb on a private jet they belie their claims. If they don't take it seriously why should I?

That's all we needed to know.

And no, I'm not a climatologist. I have though been trained in both physics and astronomy, and I am well versed in all physical sciences, including some literature on this topic.