"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:22

[Vuk]

If this interpretation is correct, it's hardly reason to pop any corks.

Yet Vuk's reaction seems to be analogous to this:

Doctor: Good news! The latest tests have pushed back the cancer prognosis by a few years.

Patient: You hear that? Cancer's a myth! Time to smoke a pack to celebrate!

Not really. I am not denying climate change. I just believe that the world is a natural, adapting body that was created to not be static. I don't think the ice is melting because Joe Schmoe down the road owns a satanic SUV.

So a better analogy would be:
Doctor: Good news! Remember I told you that you would die of cancer by today because you drink too much milk? Well I was wrong, you won't die for another 20 years, but I am still confident milk is causing the problem.
Patient: Sorry Doc, but your predictions suck and I don't think you really understand my problem or the cause of it. I won't stop drinking milk any time soon.

I am not denying climate change, I am simply saying that the 'experts' either have no idea what is driving it and/or are completely dishonest.

[AntiDamascus]

Why are they lying?

[Vuk]

Do you have any idea how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been made off of phony climate change science?

[ReluctantSamurai]

I am simply saying that the 'experts' either have no idea what is driving it and/or are completely dishonest.

Actually, many of the 'reasons' for climate change, whether man-made or natural, are reasonably well known. The problem comes with trying to model these reasons into a prediction, because the models are very non-linear. There is no definite progression from pointA to pointB to pointC, etc. You can have events that drive your model forward one year or even several, and then events that reverse those trends.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As much as Vuk is saying some outrageous things in this thread, I do think that the language used to demonize people who challenge climate change is way over the top, and generally unfair.

See for example this article (from the Guardian, surprise surprise), which compares questioning climate change to advocating a flat earth, and dubs them "climate change deniers" - the association with the more commonly-used term "holocaust deniers" being plain enough.

[Montmorency]

As much as Vuk is saying some outrageous things in this thread, I do think that the language used to demonize people who challenge climate change is way over the top, and generally unfair.

I think we can admit that members of either sides can be fairly smug with regard to their opposite. But it can be rather tiresome for deniers (and "denier" is a rather flat and neutral term when you come to think about it) to make pretty ridiculous and/or irrelevant claims.

questioning climate change

Some people deny that climate change is anthropically-driven to any significant degree, despite much evidence to the contrary. Others deny outright that the climate even changes or can change. I think it's perfectly OK to point and laugh at those latter people.

[gaelic cowboy]

The daily mail article can be debunked with secondary school maths never mind a college engineering degree

[Vuk]

The daily mail article can be debunked with secondary school maths never mind a college engineering degree

Sorry to be a jerk, but the irony really made me laugh. :P

[gaelic cowboy]

Sorry to be a jerk, but the irony really made me laugh. :P

No idea what your laughing at man

it can be debunked by maths that you learn in school


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maths

[Vuk]

It is a Britishism, not a real word. Otherwise you would hear it being spoken in America.

[drone]

My favorite Britishism is "drink driving". The use of the present tense makes it seem way more hardcore.

[AntiDamascus]

Do you have any idea how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been made off of phony climate change science?

Where are these hundreds of billions coming from? The government? The Democrats and Republicans have united for decades to shovel money at scientists to push this idea of global warming?

Where is the money going? Are these scientists making millions of dollars in salary? Why give these guys tons of money on lies? Where is the payoff to giving these guys tons of money?

[Hax]

Otherwise you would hear it being spoken in America.

Please never ever take courses in linguistics. You'll just upset people.

[Vuk]

Please never ever take courses in linguistics. You'll just upset people.

lol mate, turn your sense of humor on and read it again.

[Hax]

"Mate"? This is not Australia, bro, this is America.

[Vuk]

"Mate"? This is not Australia, bro, this is America.

Well said. I knew you were really an American at heart.

[Strike For The South]

Desire without knowledge is not good, and whoever makes haste with his feet misses his way.

Proverbs 19:2

[a completely inoffensive name]

Do you have any idea how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been made off of phony climate change science?

Let me check the US Federal budget real quick.

Nope, it's all still going to missiles and the elderly. I wonder where all that money is coming from then.

[AntiDamascus]

Let me check the US Federal budget real quick.

Nope, it's all still going to missiles and the elderly. I wonder where all that money is coming from then.

What has me wondering is what is the point. Is it just money laundering? Is the government just handing over "hundreds of billions" to these scientists because of stuff they all know is fake? Why? The government has to get something out of it and the only thing I've seen so far here is "population control".

How does that work? "Oh man, we need to use electric cars..... so let's have less kids"? I don't get how recycling or renewable energy does that.

The only other thing he could mean is like controlling the population like brainwashing or puppet stringing the masses or whatever. It just seems like a waste of money. If you want people fat and stupid just give them free TV and Cheetos and let them go. I don't see the need for the deception when it can turn on them bad.

[CBR]

Daily Mail bashing is fun for the whole family, but Vuk is correct, it is being reported on other sites:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...485712464.html
Even if the WSJ leans right, Murdoch hasn't turned it into the Sun just yet.

I think you are sadly mistaken on that one. At least when it comes to stuff about the climate

The easy rule to remember is to never ever read anything written by David Rose or Matt Ridley.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/arct...telegraph.html

[drone]

I think you are sadly mistaken on that one. At least when it comes to stuff about the climate

The easy rule to remember is to never ever read anything written by David Rose or Matt Ridley.

I haven't looked at a print WSJ in a while. Do they have topless women in business skirts yet?

[CountArach]

Do you have any idea how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been made off of phony climate change science?

Tons of it! Mostly made by people accepting money from oil companies and the Koch brothers!

[Fragony]

I think you are sadly mistaken on that one. At least when it comes to stuff about the climate

The easy rule to remember is to never ever read anything written by David Rose or Matt Ridley.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/arct...telegraph.html

The numbers come from the university of Cambridge, 4th in rankings of the world, not sure. Ice ice baby

[CBR]

Do they have topless women in business skirts yet?

Topless women might make me forget about their crappy science...

[HoreTore]

I note that Vuk seems to be reluctant to name names. He's been challenged several times to elaborate on the "who's and what's" of his population control claim, yet no response.

As Vuk is someone who is usually quite happy to share wildly controversial claims, this puzzles me. Why chicken out now, Vuk?

[Fragony]

I note that Vuk seems to be reluctant to name names. He's been challenged several times to elaborate on the "who's and what's" of his population control claim, yet no response.

As Vuk is someone who is usually quite happy to share wildly controversial claims, this puzzles me. Why chicken out now, Vuk?

I'll just do it for him, lying about the climate is a billion-dollar industry. Billions go from hand to hand in the emission-rights trade, and let's not forget the green lobby's who think the apocalypse of doom is comming. For governments it's easy tax.

[HoreTore]

I'll just do it for him, lying about the climate is a billion-dollar industry. Billions go from hand to hand in the emission-rights trade, and let's not forget the green lobby's who think the apocalypse of doom is comming. For governments it's easy tax.

.....and which environmental organization is happy about the emission trade, exactly? Which green organization or party doesn't see it as governments paying lip-service to environmental concerns while allowing business to continue as usual?

[Goofball]

Do you have any idea how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been made off of phony climate change science?

Do you have any idea how many trillions of dollars big oil makes? They don't want to lose that. If you want to see where the financial motivation is, you're looking at the wrong side.

[HopAlongBunny]

Actually, we should be worshiping these defenders of freedom for providing "stimulus" during lean financial times.
Very few people or organizations are so willing to pour money down a hole simply to provide employment to persons they despise.
God bless the Koch brothers!

[ajaxfetish]

I'll just leave this here, as it seems relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH5D9P6KYfY