Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are human activities influencing the climate?

Options
1…1819212324…46

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    Yes I have a qualification,its called an open mind,and I also have a brain,its my brain,not tainted by the sycophant scientists ,politicians,or media who jump on the climate change bandwagon without recognising the many contributing factors .I point out the many reasons but you are all too blind to see them,hence the taxi driver reference.Youre all experts spouting evidence that you cannot verify and mistake for fact just because some scientist says so.Science is always being proven wrong.As long as the funding keeps rolling in,scientists are quite happy to bull**** us,and you all fall for it.

    Hmmm.

    We're basing our facts on scientists, you're basing yours on conspiracy theorists. That's your call, but do you not see the hypocrisy in going on about how we're all just getting our information from elsewhere, while you're doing the exact same thing, just from a different source? The key difference of course is that the scientific sources are backed up by facts and figures, while the conspiracy theories are backed up by "HAARP did it because government bad".


  • Options
    #603
    flaneur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 960 ✭✭✭flaneur


    The only conspiracy is vested energy interests spreading the notion they climate change is a conspiracy theory and trying to discredit what has been proven many, many times by science.

    Combine that with short term thinking, economic systems that only care about the next quarter’s results and a number of popular US Christian fundamentalist outlooks that take a fatalistic approach to life - endlessly waiting for Armageddon or judgement day, then you get a significantly powerful population that refuses and you’ll see why there’s a problem, especially in the United States.


  • Options
    #604
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    Yes I have a qualification,its called an open mind,and I also have a brain,its my brain,not tainted by the sycophant scientists ,politicians,or media who jump on the climate change bandwagon without recognising the many contributing factors .I point out the many reasons but you are all too blind to see them,hence the taxi driver reference.Youre all experts spouting evidence that you cannot verify and mistake for fact just because some scientist says so.Science is always being proven wrong.As long as the funding keeps rolling in,scientists are quite happy to bull**** us,and you all fall for it.

    Why would the government and scientists be so determined to make up a climate change conspiracy? There's far more money in the carbon fuel industry.


  • Options
    #605
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Hmmm.

    We're basing our facts on scientists, you're basing yours on conspiracy theorists. That's your call, but do you not see the hypocrisy in going on about how we're all just getting our information from elsewhere, while you're doing the exact same thing, just from a different source? The key difference of course is that the scientific sources are backed up by facts and figures, while the conspiracy theories are backed up by "HAARP did it because government bad".

    The difference is that I am not blinkered into just accepting one version of climate change,im able to see all the contributing factors and just because its source isnt part of a "scientifically backed paper" that doesnt mean its not true.As I said before,the u.n. got countries to sign up to a treaty banning the use of weather modification technology as far back as 1972 if my memory serves me correctly on the date.So if you wish to dismiss this az conspiracy then ts going to lessen your ability to see the problems from all angles and possibilities.Plus ,the words conspiracy theory were injected into mainstream consciousness by the cia after the first kennedy assassination.


  • Options
    #606
    srsly78
    Registered Users Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    If you actually cared you would study to be a scientist. Without understanding the basics you can't filter out this absolute garbage stuff.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    srsly78 wrote: »
    If you actually cared you would study to be a scientist. Without understanding the basics you can't filter out this absolute garbage stuff.

    I would never study to become a scientist because learning from any institution limits our own natural ability to question,science is always being proved wrong,and they constantly have to backtrack on findings which were said to be 100% peer reviewed and 100% proven.Still no reply to u.n. weather technology treaty,suppose thats another conspiracy.


  • Options
    #608
    srsly78
    Registered Users Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    Scientists are the ones that prove science wrong, that's how it works. Instead you are choosing not to participate and instead just shout nonsense.


  • Options
    #609
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    I would never study to become a scientist because learning from any institution limits our own natural ability to question,science is always being proved wrong,and they constantly have to backtrack on findings which were said to be 100% peer reviewed and 100% proven.Still no reply to u.n. weather technology treaty,suppose thats another conspiracy.

    Plus,the reason I question everything is because I do care,and will not be spoon fed information ,I make logical decisions using an open mind.Most people prefer to believe whats presented to them on a plate,I dont.


  • Options
    #610
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    The difference is that I am not blinkered into just accepting one version of climate change,im able to see all the contributing factors and just because its source isnt part of a "scientifically backed paper" that doesnt mean its not true.As I said before,the u.n. got countries to sign up to a treaty banning the use of weather modification technology as far back as 1972 if my memory serves me correctly on the date.So if you wish to dismiss this az conspiracy then ts going to lessen your ability to see the problems from all angles and possibilities.Plus ,the words conspiracy theory were injected into mainstream consciousness by the cia after the first kennedy assassination.

    You're blinkered into accepting bonkers conspiracy blogs though. How is that any better? How is the information you're getting from some headcase with a computer better than the combined education of experts in the field? You're not looking at it from all angles, you're looking at it from one very specific angle that doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

    All these conspiracy posts follow the same template. An attempt to discredit the rational outlook, followed by a claim about an "open mind" or "making my own mind up" despite the fact the opinions are being sourced from some nonsense blog.


  • Options
    #611
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    srsly78 wrote: »
    Scientists are the ones that prove science wrong, that's how it works. Instead you are choosing not to participate and instead just shout nonsense.

    Its ok,you can dismiss everything I say as nonsense,I accept that our industrial society is affecting the climate,but there is so much more to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I'm not intimidated by him.

    It looks like you are.

    You might succeed where others have failed.
    Be confident. Tell him about things he might not know about, ice cores and tree rings.


    And about the greenhouse experiment.
    I'd say he'd love to learn all about those things.


  • Options
    #613
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    Its ok,you can dismiss everything I say as nonsense,I accept that our industrial society is affecting the climate,but there is so much more to it.

    Based on what? You keep going on about how you question everything yet you seem to accept that there's unspecified "more going on" without questioning it at all.


  • Options
    #614
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You're blinkered into accepting bonkers conspiracy blogs though. How is that any better? How is the information you're getting from some headcase with a computer better than the combined education of experts in the field? You're not looking at it from all angles, you're looking at it from one very specific angle that doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

    All these conspiracy posts follow the same template. An attempt to discredit the rational outlook, followed by a claim about an "open mind" or "making my own mind up" despite the fact the opinions are being sourced from some nonsense blog.

    I suggest that its you that is blinkered.


  • Options
    #615
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    I suggest that its you that is blinkered.

    Yep, so you keep saying. How are you any different though? You're not engaging in any independent thought, you're just reeling off well known conspiracy theories.


  • Options
    #616
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Based on what? You keep going on about how you question everything yet you seem to accept that there's unspecified "more going on" without questioning it at all.

    As I said before,u.n. treaty on weather modification technology .


  • Options
    #617
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    As I said before,u.n. treaty on weather modification technology .

    What's that?


  • Options
    #618
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    As I said before,u.n. treaty on weather modification technology .

    And the fact that treaty exists proves...what, exactly?


  • Options
    #619
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    One benefit of having no background in any relevant discipline is that it makes composing your posts a hell of a lot faster.

    It takes quite a lot of time to write up a well-structured, coherent argument using strong data.

    It takes mere seconds to come up with any old twaddle that pops into your head.


  • Options
    #620
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Yep, so you keep saying. How are you any different though? You're not engaging in any independent thought, you're just reeling off well known conspiracy theories.

    The difference is that I accept climate change is influenced by human activity of all kinds,not just the type that is peddled by scientific papers and politicians/media.Ofcourse any climate influence that is not part of the agenda will be summarily dismissed as conspiracy .Plus my thoughts are infinitely more independant than your own


  • Options
    #621
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    B0jangles wrote: »
    One benefit of having no background in any relevant discipline is that it makes composing your posts a hell of a lot faster.

    It takes quite a lot of time to write up a well-structured, coherent argument using strong data.

    It takes mere seconds to come up with any old twaddle that pops into your head.

    It's also a complete and utter waste of time when the people you're dealing with are the type that think every scientist in the world is involved in some conspiracy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    And the fact that treaty exists proves...what, exactly?

    Do I have to spell it out for you?


  • Options
    #623
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    The difference is that I accept climate change is influenced by human activity of all kinds,not just the type that is peddled by scientific papers and politicians/media.Ofcourse any climate influence that is not part of the agenda will be summarily dismissed as conspiracy .Plus my thoughts are infinitely more independant than your own

    No, just any that isn't backed up with even a shred of evidence.


  • Options
    #624
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    Do I have to spell it out for you?

    Keep it a secret instead if it suits you better. I'm sure I'm not #woke enough to understand it anyway.


  • Options
    #625
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    It's also a complete and utter waste of time when the people you're dealing with are the type that think every scientist in the world is involved in some conspiracy.

    So true; it's like trying to argue with anti-vaxxers - literally every piece of actual evidence and data is instantly rejected because it's produced by medical professionals; the only 'data' they'll accept is the kind produced by such luminaries as 'vaXXinesKILL45367' on youtube.


  • Options
    #626
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Keep it a secret instead if it suits you better. I'm sure I'm not #woke enough to understand it anyway.

    You have a valid point in the last sentence.


  • Options
    #627
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    You have a valid point in the last sentence.

    I'm sure I'll cope.

    Funny how unwilling you are to explicitly share these ideas you seem so sure of.


  • Options
    #628
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    Do I have to spell it out for you?

    You can spell it out for me if you want. I've no idea what it is or what it's about.


  • Options
    #629
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I'm sure I'll cope.

    Funny how unwilling you are to explicitly share these ideas you seem so sure of.

    I would much prefer for you to do the footwork and find out for yourselves.


  • Options
    #630
    Master of the Omniverse
    Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭Master of the Omniverse


    xckjoo wrote: »
    You can spell it out for me if you want. I've no idea what it is or what it's about.

    It would be much better if you look into it.Anything I say will get a negative reaction.Youve nothing to lose.
    into


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,268 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Master of the Omniverse wrote: »
    As I said before,u.n. treaty on weather modification technology .

    There is no treaty

    There is something called the
    Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

    It's not a 'weather control treaty' because other than cloud seeding which can cause it to rain, there is no technology that can cause extreme weather events at will

    We do have one set of technology that is causing devastating effects on weather and climate however, and it's the internal combustion engine and other methods of burning fossil fuels.


Advertisement