Religion or climate science?
If you meant religion, I agree. They have centuries of brainwashing experience under their belts and seeing the amount of people that still believe in religion, they are doing a pretty good job at it.
The shear magnitude of brainwashing on this issue is amazing.
I am not a climate change denier. The climate will always change and has always changed. I am denier that human influences on the climate are having some catastrophic impact that we will not be able to handle easily.
Lighten up, Francis. I figured it was pronounced like "reality" but after posting "not really" and seeing it next to your name I just had to edit it.
Most of Moonbeam's posts are completely rational. Typically, and I'm not saying this is the case with you, people that think a post by Moonbeam is babble either don't understand it because it is over their head and don't want to take the time to understand it, or they just don't like the message.
For example, everything he just explained was completely apparent to me from his first post. Now, even though that last post was completely clear to you, there are many people reading it that still think it looks like babble.
I am not a climate change denier. The climate will always change and has always changed. I am denier that human influences on the climate are having some catastrophic impact that we will not be able to handle easily.
Huh? This is what comes from reading too much Steven Goddard.
Climate change makes droughts more likely and it makes them more likely to be more severe. That in no way means we couldn't or didn't have severe droughts in the past, and it doesn't mean that droughts that happen today are entirely caused by climate change or anything like that.
It's sad that you're trying to paint scientists as propagandists, especially because the reason you're doing so is that you've fallen victim to climate denial propaganda.
Propaganda, like Hurricane Katrina's real name is Global Warming.
Weather equals climate any time it suits their purposes. That's why I'm disgusted at the "link" with Syria. The connection is simply nonexistent. They already try to pull this !@#$ with the United States weather, regardless of the cold hard facts. Hurricane impacts, tornado counts, drought severity... the "extreme weather" meme simply doesn't hold up.
When I present how mild US droughts have been, you run away. Too busy attacking Goddard to admit government data does not support you.
Well I mean what would you measure other than correlations?
A vast portion of scientific research is all correlations.
Yep. Ex Post explanations can help to make Ex Ante predictions. I think there is a problem with the way most people now use correlations though. Many think that observations about correlations may mean they understand what is happening. Often, Ex Post explanations about correlations can be wrong, and in science that is fine. Many feel that changing your stance means you don't have credibility. Science is not a method that gives you perfect answers. Its a method that is most efficient at getting answers, vs every other method we have so far.
obviously these results are just correlation studies, I won't put too much trust into these personally. However to say all GW scientists work are unscientific as a whole because of these few people is quite unfair.
The thing that is disturbing is the endless correlation studies which are performed on every bad event in the world to see it they can be linked to global warming. On the other hand, not a single correlation study is done on good events to see if they can be linked to global warming. From where I am sitting, that is an not pure science but an attempt to push a poilitical agenda. Objective science would evaluate BOTH the good and the bad. For example, there is ample evidence that the planet is greening rapidly because of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, the only scientists who appear interested in this are in the anti-MMGW crowd..... why is that?
The thing that is disturbing is the endless correlation studies which are performed on every bad event in the world to see it they can be linked to global warming. On the other hand, not a single correlation study is done on good events to see if they can be linked to global warming. From where I am sitting, that is an not pure science but an attempt to push a poilitical agenda. Objective science would evaluate BOTH the good and the bad. For example, there is ample evidence that the planet is greening rapidly because of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, the only scientists who appear interested in this are in the anti-MMGW crowd..... why is that?
Maybe because the deaths of billions of people would be good for fungus growth.
It may come as a shock to you but every single person alive on the planet today is going to die, every last one, whether there is global warming or not will not change that basic fact a bit. If you are going to argue, you should argue on quality of life, sustainability, etc....
I do thank you for the nice easy lob right over the plate, it was my pleasure to knock it out of the park.... lol!
Today I learned that the death count from every battle in history was zero because everyone was going to die someday anyway.
/facepalm
Good grief eski, you really believe Moon when he says that BILLIONS will die because of global warming? Is there a scientific basis for that claim? Is it testable? What is the difference between that and the nutter with the sign on the street crying end of days?
Good grief eski, you really believe Moon when he says that BILLIONS will die because of global warming? Is there a scientific basis for that claim? Is it testable? What is the difference between that and the nutter with the sign on the street crying end of days?
Maybe because the deaths of billions of people would be good for fungus growth.
That isn't what he said. He was making the point that billions of human deaths would be good for fungus growth but that doesn't make things "even out."
Indeed, I took this nonsense that man made climate change is a made up hysteria on the left designed to use fear of billions of deaths to push a political agenda as something also that has a bright side he's not looking at. In short, the point he made is idiotic, and when I made the same case back to him, he saw the soft ball he lobbed. Of course, it never occurred to me that everybody is going to die. But now that I think about it, maybe, if so, we should make life while we have it as good as we can. Silly me. I think I'm going to go back and worry about the government stealing from me and calling it taxes. After all, I'm going to die and I want to be the richest man in the cemetery.
What the fuck is the meaning of life again? I get so confused.