I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[visionary]

 

[Mad Mike]

Quote

Bad Argument/Myth #18: It’s a liberal conspiracy/It’s all about the money!
 

Reality: These are ad hoc fallacies(i.e., unless you provide actual evidence that they are corrupt, these claims are baseless assumptions). Additionally, if we are going to go down this road, then let’s flip things upside down and ask the opposite question: who would benefit from opposingclimate change research? The answer to that question is pretty obvious: oil companies. If scientists could really be bought off so easily, then why haven’t multi-billion-dollar oil companies been able to buy off more than a handful of them? Given the vast wealth of oil companies, the millions of dollars that they have poured into denialist organizations, and the economically unstable state of most governments, surely oil companies could offer scientists more than governments could.

Debunking 25 arguments against climate change in 5 sentences or less (each)
 

[twa]

" offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report "

 

no room for skeptics or dissent in your science?

Your propaganda wing can't survive 

 

that NY AG is closer to being charged with corruption. 

[Mad Mike]

25 minutes ago, twa said:

" offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report "

 

no room for skeptics or dissent in your science?

Your propaganda wing can't survive 

 

that NY AG is closer to being charged with corruption. 

Offering money for specific conclusions IS NOT how science works.

And your second argument may be your dumbest one yet. You want to talk about no room for dissent? Your hypocrisy is on full display here.
 

Trump is deleting climate change, one site at a time

EPA purges climate change information as part of “Website Updates”
 

 

[twa]

your own link said "emphasise the shortcomings " which is not specific conclusions and most certainly is science.

 

Keep wrapping yourself in the 97%  bs while ignoring what % even those agree on details.

Keep preaching to your choir.

 

[Mad Mike]

1 minute ago, twa said:

your own link said "emphasise the shortcomings " which is not specific conclusions and most certainly is science.

 

Keep wrapping yourself in the 97%  bs while ignoring what % even those agree on details.

Keep preaching to your choir.

 

So you believe *this* supports your argument...?
 

Quote

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

I honestly wonder if you get paid to vomit your insane theories on this site. Sean Spicer and Sarah Huckabee Sanders have nothing on you.

 

[twa]

Maybe because you can be bought?

 

I'm not trying to support mine, just pointing out the flaws in yours....for free 

[AsburySkinsFan]

The ONLY reason you're not trying to support yours is because yours is unsupportable! The ONLY freaking reason GOPers haven't finally accepted the human affect in climate change can be summed up in four letters...GORE.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

Yo @twa, climate change is making it harder to grow blue agave.

 

Welcome to the team.

[twa]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

The ONLY reason you're not trying to support yours is because yours is unsupportable! The ONLY freaking reason GOPers haven't finally accepted the human affect in climate change can be summed up in four letters...GORE.

 

I do admit him and folk like him make it difficult for ya'll. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-hype-doesnt-help-1505672774

 

what % of the increase in temp is due to humans(that is changeable w/o killing them off) in your opinion?

 

do you know the % in the 97% bs that think it is above 50%?

 

but maybe we should kill off some/many for mother earth, ya'll already seem receptive for lesser reasons than survival.

 

maybe a poll?

 

 

[Mad Mike]

4 hours ago, twa said:

Maybe because you can be bought?

 

I'm not trying to support mine, just pointing out the flaws in yours....for free 

Some things never change. Still no sane, rational argument. Still smarmy as ever.
 

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

Just now, twa said:

 

I do admit him and folk like him make it difficult for ya'll. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-hype-doesnt-help-1505672774

 

what % of the increase in temp is due to humans(that is changeable w/o killing them off) in your opinion?

 

do you know the % in the 97% bs that think it is above 50%?

 

but maybe we should kill off some/many for mother earth, ya'll already seem receptive for lesser reasons than survival.

 

maybe a poll?

 

 

 

Instead of looking at it from ridiculous hypothetical percentages, how about look at it from a realist point of view?

 

We are a DOMINANT force on Earth.  Not as dominant as the inner-guts of Earth, not as dominant as the atmosphere itself, but ****ing dominant.

 

We have JUST DISCOVERED that lighting all this recently-dead stuff on fire is helpful to keeping us alive.

 

Okay, so, it's FLUXED in to the biggest industry in the world...Earth.  Is getting...smoke, injected in to the thin atmosphere.  Suddenly.

 

Okay, no reaction.  Right.

Edited September 18, 2017 by d0ublestr0ker0ll

[AsburySkinsFan]

Gore makes it diffucult not because of anything he did, but because the Right is so full of hate and animous toward anything Clinton/Democrat related that instead of hearing the facts all you saw was Gore. This entire debate exists purely because 90% of GOPers are too stupid to understand what the Genetic Fallacy is and why it's important. The other 10% understand fully and don't give a ****.

Edited September 18, 2017 by AsburySkinsFan

[LadySkinsFan]

They understand fully, and don't give a **** because to deal with it and craft policy to ameliorate it cuts into their money making policies.  Period.  It's all about the money for these ****ers.

[PeterMP]

11 hours ago, twa said:

 

I do admit him and folk like him make it difficult for ya'll. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-hype-doesnt-help-1505672774

 

what % of the increase in temp is due to humans(that is changeable w/o killing them off) in your opinion?

 

do you know the % in the 97% bs that think it is above 50%?

 

but maybe we should kill off some/many for mother earth, ya'll already seem receptive for lesser reasons than survival.

 

maybe a poll?

 

 

 

Tell 2% of the people that lost love ones in Irma and Harvey that we shouldn't worry about storms increasing intensity by 2% and see how they respond.

 

Tell them that based on our best data collection that a 2% increase isn't significant and so we shouldn't do anything about it.

 

I'd love to see somebody do that.

 

(And that's the low value, takes into account just the increase in the storm intensity, and not the increase in flooding due to the already increase in sea level rises where that 2% is going to cause a greater than 2% increase in flooding.)

 

I also suspect that your headline is somewhat misleading.  I suspect the number of people living essentially everywhere in the US is going up because the population of the US is going up.  I could only find data for CA, but during the housing boom the percentage of people living on the CA coast was flat, while inland CA was up.  When I was in college in the 1990s, it was pointed out that the vast majority of the people in the US and around the globe live near a coast.

Edited September 18, 2017 by PeterMP

[twa]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

Tell 2% of the people that lost love ones in Irma and Harvey that we shouldn't worry about storms increasing intensity by 2% and see how they respond.

 

Tell them that based on our best data collection that a 2% increase isn't significant and so we shouldn't do anything about it.

 

I'd love to see somebody do that.

 

 

Or terrorist victims or those killed by illegal aliens or cancer or .....those that can't pay their energy bill.

[AsburySkinsFan]

35 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Or terrorist victims or those killed by illegal aliens or cancer or .....those that can't pay their energy bill.

And yet if we told you that there was no such thing as terrorism or cancer you'd rightfully call us insane. 

Now flip the script and you'll understand how we see you.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

Or terrorist victims or those killed by illegal aliens or cancer or .....those that can't pay their energy bill.

 

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do anything about terrorism, illegal aliens (especially ones that have a history of criminal activity beyond coming here), cancer, or the extreme poor.

 

Are you?

 

Does the author of the piece you posted?

 

Those are all things most people are willing to try and do things to fix.  But the author of your piece realistically (and realistically you) is arguing for hurricanes we should do nothing.

Edited September 18, 2017 by PeterMP

[twa]

2 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

And yet if we told you that there was no such thing as terrorism or cancer you'd rightfully call us insane. 

Now flip the script and you'll understand how we see you.

 

You see what you want to, just like terrorism and cancer.

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

 

Those are all things most people are willing to try and do things to fix.  But the author of your piece realistically (and realistically you) is arguing for hurricanes we should do nothing.

 

Not at all what I got from the article

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, twa said:

 

You see what you want to, just like terrorism and cancer.

 

Not at all what I got from the article

 

How are better leadership, evacuation plans, and weather predictions going to help Puerto Rico, which appears as if it is going to get hit by its second big hurricane this year?

[Mad Mike]

1 hour ago, twa said:

You see what you want to

You just described yourself perfectly. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

13 minutes ago, Mad Mike said:

You just described yourself perfectly. 

Yep, apparently  climate change is a matter of opinion, or a Rorschach test and, I can just hear Republicans saying now "well, that's not what the science means to me."

 

  They treat science like they treat their religion, everybody is their own Pope thereby making their beliefs infallible and above reproach.

Edited September 18, 2017 by AsburySkinsFan

[twa]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

How are better leadership, evacuation plans, and weather predictions going to help Puerto Rico, which appears as if it is going to get hit by its second big hurricane this year?

 

How are your AGW solutions going to help?

You seriously think you are going to prevent or reduce them?

[twa]

21 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

 

  They treat science like they treat their religion, everybody is their own Pope thereby making their beliefs infallible and above reproach.

 

Whereas the faithful true AGW believers just go on with the inquisition and purging.

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

17 minutes ago, twa said:

 

the inquisition and purging.

 

 

Sorry, but you spelled "peer review" incorrectly.

23 minutes ago, twa said:

 

How are your AGW solutions going to help?

You seriously think you are going to prevent or reduce them?

So instead pretend the whole thing is made up so you don't have to do anything.

 

Talk about head-in-the-sand thinking.