Homepage Forums Scientific Method, Skepticism Denialism vs Skepticism

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)
  • Author
  • #810
    AvatarPhil’s Dad

    See! I told you so! 😉

    (Seriously B, alarmists are denialists too.)


    I agree with you,
    actually I think any extreme is usually bad.


    msmith wrote: http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

    I really hate to be a GW advocate – I have better things to do, but when facing blatant mi/dis-information,
    According to the results of a one-time online questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) (i.e. 75 of 77 individuals out of the 3146) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change. Overall, 82% reported agreeing with AGW.[1] According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points

    AvatarPhil’s Dad

    Breakable wrote: According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points

    What would these people who work on climate change do for a living if it proved to be a false alarm?

    Just asking. :cheese:


    Probably continue working in the same field for the rest of their lives, or move to other fields if the funds are not available.
    It does not (or at least should not) matter for a scientist if his research is right or wrong, the work is to test it.
    Specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure positions were made to solve any pressure issues.
    Edit:The only problem would be if they start not to do their job properly and go into Denial.


    I hate to break it to y’all, but pretty much most of what people do for a living is pointless. We tend to shuffle things back and forth. Try to accumulate stuff. Have bragging rights. Pursuit of knowledge? Just for the satisfaction of knowing something? Or to increase productivity? And hence profits? Woo. More for someone. Or more someones.

    There’s something misanthropic about that line of questioning. “Shouldn’t you be doing something worthwhile? You sponge?” Really, if we look closely, we’d be hard pressed to find someone who is worthwhile. It’s by grace we’re here. Quantification of value is delusional.

    I’m waxing existential here, of course.

    I like having everyone around, and I like the ones that find fantastically useless things to do and make a killing at it! Master shufflers. (Football players! Shuffling a ball from one side of a field to another. Over and over again. Every year, the same contest begins.)

    Sleight of hand. And not con artists. But people who make you think you really need whatever it is they’re offering.

    Because it’s important to feel a need. Just to feel. Because really, we’re nothing, from nothing, to nothing.

    But in the interim of nothing – there’re these blips. : )

    I guess what I’m saying is, beloved, let us have more compassion for one another.


    Rezwan, I think all our pursuits wont matter in a million years more or less. Still reducing suffering is a noble pursuit and this is what I hope FF will achieve.

    AvatarPhil’s Dad

    Rezwan wrote: Really, if we look closely, we’d be hard pressed to find someone who is worthwhile.

    I would argue that it is difficult to truly find someone who is not.
    Otherwise it makes you wonder, why bother?
    (Then of course you have already given the answer)

    I like having everyone around…

    Here’s to the blip!


    msmith wrote: http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/ClimateConference4

    About the sun:

    Oil companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute.[9] ExxonMobil contributed a total of $560,000 between 1998 and 2005.[10] This included $119,000 in 2005, ExxonMobil’s largest gift to Heartland in that period. Nearly 40% of funds from ExxonMobil were specifically designated for climate change projects.[11] Greenpeace research showed that the Heartland Institute had received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[12]

    The Institute has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy, opposing restrictions on smoking and criticizing science which documents the harms of secondhand smoke.[23] Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights reported that there is a the close financial and organizational relationship between the tobacco industry and the Heartland Institute, and described the Heartland Institute as “an active partner of the tobacco industry”.[24]

    Heartland’s publications make the following assertions about climate change:
    * “Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.”[17]
    * “The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend.”[17]
    * “A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.”[17]
    * “The best strategy to pursue is one of ‘no regrets’.”[17]

    If you want some actual information, instead of lies have been debunked long time ago and are repeated over and over again, watch uploads from:


    Henrik Svensmark
    The Cloud Mystery 1/6
    The Cloud Mystery 2/6
    The Cloud Mystery 3/6
    The Cloud Mystery 4/6
    The Cloud Mystery 5/6
    The Cloud Mystery 6/6


    msmith wrote: Henrik Svensmark
    The Cloud Mystery 1/6

    OK, I watched this first one. Pretty scary stuff.

    We have much less control over space and solar and cosmic ray emissions than we do over C02! Actually, no control – except maybe we can try human sacrifice.

    This makes us sitting ducks to the vagaries of stellar chaos. If this is the alternative, I prefer the “man-made” concept. Human culpability at least means human control. Responsibility is empowering.

    And I’m wondering, if this idea gets in vogue, what kind of money has to be spent to build something that protects us from these whacked out rays. Imagine the government spending for a cosmic ray regulation program. Or cosmic ray mitigation schemes. Imagine the fraudulent programs that would pop up for that.

    Also, all you have to do here, if you’re a “cut c02” enthusiast, is then say – “well, whatever, so it’s cosmic rays. Now we need to cut c02 even more to balance out the cosmic rays. Or send a magnagibious missile into the sun – but that seems a might risky.”

    And then, when you’re finished imagining the new influx of schemes and taxes this new idea suggests, just relax and realize whatever theory comes up, there will be costs associated with it, and money wasted and people trying to control you.

    While thought and energy should always be spent to try and figure out what is really, honest to gosh, going on, there’s no need to stop the world and the flawed schemes currently emerging, while you do this.

    Just try to leverage the emerging schemes (however wrongheaded you think they are) to the greater good.

    So, if you think it’s cosmic rays and not human co2 – well, fine. But cutting co2 also increases creativity and develops alternatives which helps diversify an economy, so it can’t be all bad. And so on.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.