Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:This is common knowledge, Bob, but I'm not doing your homework for you. You can either believe me or call me a liar but I don't give a fuck one way or the other.

You're a damn oblivious fool if you say it's common knowledge, because it isn't common knowledge, so go fuck yourself!

You have adequately demonstrated the scope of your knowledge on a wide range of topics, Bob, so I owe you an apology. I should have said that this is common knowledge to most people with a basic education.

Obvious Leo wrote:You have adequately demonstrated the scope of your knowledge on a wide range of topics, Bob, so I owe you an apology. I should have said that this is common knowledge to most people with a basic education.

You're full of shit, pal, and again, you don't have a legitimate reference for your godforsakenly stupid contention!

It is pointless to debate an AGW denier. Its like debating a flat earther. And yes, I would call someone that thinks the earth is flat ianti-science. I would not say that he has a healthy skepticism.
Why do AGW deniers think that they know more about climate change then the world's entire scientific community? Also over 98% of climate scientists agree that AGW is a fact. They also provide empirical data. Is all that data lies??? And if ALL the scientific data is lies, where do you get your data that AGW is a myth???? Since you cannot get your data from the scientific community (since according to you it is all lies) you must be getting it from outside the scientific community. Some guys blog?

bobevenson wrote:Most scientists are left-wing liberals who hate capitalism. They are able to indirectly attack capitalism with their questionable weather hypotheses, data analysis and conclusions.

Bob. Every university in the world has a faculty which is conducting research in the field of climate science. Every government in the world is funding this research to a greater or lesser extent, as are almost all major private corporations. Consequently climate science is attracting some of the finest minds in the world of science. Are you seriously suggesting that every one of them is actually embroiled in a secret communist plot to overthrow the world order?

raw_thought wrote: Why do AGW deniers think that they know more about climate change then the world's entire scientific community? Some guys blog?

They don't but they are not impressed by this oft told myth.
Fact is that not even the climate experts, when pressed, can tell you in detail to what extend human activity is changing the climate and just because a bunch of non-climate related scientists have signed a fucking petition does not mean that the "World's Entire Scientific Community" knows any better either.
So stop treating yourself like a moron, and see this for what it is: propaganda.

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Most scientists are left-wing liberals who hate capitalism. They are able to indirectly attack capitalism with their questionable weather hypotheses, data analysis and conclusions.

Bob. Every university in the world has a faculty which is conducting research in the field of climate science.?

Nope.
Few on here are impressed with hyperbole, and that's all Bob has.
It this a worthy debate.

Actually (if you had read up on the subject) climate scientists have determined the effect of humans on climate change. Tho to be fair, climate scientists have UNDERESTIMATED the effect. Similarly, if I know that something has an effect, I will say that I do not know the exact effect. But I do know that it is at least this.

The least possible effect that climate scientists say humans contribute to global warming, is still shocking.

raw_thought wrote:Actually (if you had read up on the subject) climate scientists have determined the effect of humans on climate change. Tho to be fair, climate scientists have UNDERESTIMATED the effect. Similarly, if I know that something has an effect, I will say that I do not know the exact effect. But I do know that it is at least this.

Climate scientists have consistently overestimated the effect of climate change and have an embarrassing history of poorly worked out pronouncements, followed by a litany of backtracking and excuse making.

raw_thought wrote:The least possible effect that climate scientists say humans contribute to global warming, is still shocking.

At least we won't have to suffer the overdue IceAge that they were predicting in the 1970s. So there is something positive to be had from Global Warming.

There is very little disagreement among climate scientists that the global warming which has been observed over the past century is due to the combined effects of fossil fuel combustion and widespread global deforestation. There remains ample disagreement about what the implications of this are for the next century and beyond, but by and large the current majority opinion is that these effects have almost certainly been underestimated rather than overestimated. This was acknowledged by all the nations represented at the recent Paris climate conference and although it remains to be seen whether the measures agreed to there will be anywhere near adequate to address the problem it simply beggars belief that every nation in the world is the victim of some sort of gigantic hoax, as Bob is suggesting.

Actually, a new ice age was NEVER the scientific community's view. In the 70s. Stop making stuff up!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Actually (if you had read up on the subject) climate scientists have determined the effect of humans on climate change. Tho to be fair, climate scientists have UNDERESTIMATED the effect. Similarly, if I know that something has an effect, I will say that I do not know the exact effect. But I do know that it is at least this.

Climate scientists have consistently overestimated the effect of climate change and have an embarrassing history of poorly worked out pronouncements, followed by a litany of backtracking and excuse making.

Ummm NO! Their estimates have consistently UNDERESTIMATED the effect of global warming. STOP MAKING STUFF UP!