Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I find it astonishing that..

kogline
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 2:05:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 11:42:44 AM, fergie1 wrote:
31% of people on this website think that climate change is fake.

[IMG]http://i851.photobucket.com...[/IMG]

i highly doubt they think that climate change doesnt happen, probably just that humans don't have a drastic effect on the phenomenon.
if state farm has perfected teleportation technology why do they still sell car insurance?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 2:18:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 11:42:44 AM, fergie1 wrote:
31% of people on this website think that climate change is fake.

[IMG]http://i851.photobucket.com...[/IMG]

The Scientific data has been largely invalidated by fraud, so really my position should be 50/50. But inductive reasoning reminds me that most scare stories are financially motivated hoaxes... plus it's fun to be a contrarian.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 2:23:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 2:18:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/17/2011 11:42:44 AM, fergie1 wrote:
31% of people on this website think that climate change is fake.

[IMG]http://i851.photobucket.com...[/IMG]

The Scientific data has been largely invalidated by fraud, so really my position should be 50/50. But inductive reasoning reminds me that most scare stories are financially motivated hoaxes... plus it's fun to be a contrarian.

I will be using that word on people for the rest of my life. Thank you for letting me know it exists. Too many people oppose things JUST for the sheer fact that they like disagreeing with the majority.

Ex1. Ragnar_Rahl is a freakin contrarian.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 2:24:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 2:23:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/17/2011 2:18:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/17/2011 11:42:44 AM, fergie1 wrote:
31% of people on this website think that climate change is fake.

[IMG]http://i851.photobucket.com...[/IMG]

The Scientific data has been largely invalidated by fraud, so really my position should be 50/50. But inductive reasoning reminds me that most scare stories are financially motivated hoaxes... plus it's fun to be a contrarian.

I will be using that word on people for the rest of my life. Thank you for letting me know it exists. Too many people oppose things JUST for the sheer fact that they like disagreeing with the majority.

Ex1. Ragnar_Rahl is a freakin contrarian.

I am not sure if he is, or if he is merely freakin, I get why you would say that though.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 7:37:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nope. I just did it because I felt that it was closest to my actual position, which is "I
believe it exists, though I am skeptical on Anthropogenic Global Warming. However, I believe that global warming is good and all problems it would cause are very minor, and we definitely shouldn't attempt to stop it from a cost-benefit analysis."
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 10:56:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As massive an impact as humans have on the environment (and I don't think anyone can deny this) the fact remains that the Earth is prone to massive temperature changes without our help. If anything, global warming may turn out to be a blessing when the next Ice Age comes. ;P
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 11:00:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 10:56:41 PM, tvellalott wrote:
As massive an impact as humans have on the environment (and I don't think anyone can deny this) the fact remains that the Earth is prone to massive temperature changes without our help. If anything, global warming may turn out to be a blessing when the next Ice Age comes. ;P

Its easier to survive an ice age than a global warming.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 10:32:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 11:00:14 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 10/17/2011 10:56:41 PM, tvellalott wrote:
As massive an impact as humans have on the environment (and I don't think anyone can deny this) the fact remains that the Earth is prone to massive temperature changes without our help. If anything, global warming may turn out to be a blessing when the next Ice Age comes. ;P

Its easier to survive an ice age than a global warming.

No. Just no.

Their is a certain rate of human population growth. It has always went up during warm periods (AKA global warming, which was often much "worse" than what is happening now) and down during cold periods(AKA ice ages). This is what we should expect, because the warmth means that we can grow more food. It is easier to grow food in warmer climates than in colder climates. Not only that, warmer periods actually lead to wetter and more fertile conditions. With the Sahara, it has been the warmer the wetter. Most animals and plants, including humans, would do better in a warmer climate than a colder one.

http://www.stanford.edu...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 10:51:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 10:32:35 AM, seraine wrote:
At 10/17/2011 11:00:14 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 10/17/2011 10:56:41 PM, tvellalott wrote:
As massive an impact as humans have on the environment (and I don't think anyone can deny this) the fact remains that the Earth is prone to massive temperature changes without our help. If anything, global warming may turn out to be a blessing when the next Ice Age comes. ;P

Its easier to survive an ice age than a global warming.

No. Just no.

Their is a certain rate of human population growth. It has always went up during warm periods (AKA global warming, which was often much "worse" than what is happening now) and down during cold periods(AKA ice ages). This is what we should expect, because the warmth means that we can grow more food. It is easier to grow food in warmer climates than in colder climates. Not only that, warmer periods actually lead to wetter and more fertile conditions. With the Sahara, it has been the warmer the wetter. Most animals and plants, including humans, would do better in a warmer climate than a colder one.

http://www.stanford.edu...

When your link says "Hippopotamuses, lions, rhinoceroses and elephants roamed the English countryside." One starts to wonder if it is all being pulled out their arse.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 1:19:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 11:00:14 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 10/17/2011 10:56:41 PM, tvellalott wrote:
As massive an impact as humans have on the environment (and I don't think anyone can deny this) the fact remains that the Earth is prone to massive temperature changes without our help. If anything, global warming may turn out to be a blessing when the next Ice Age comes. ;P

Its easier to survive an ice age than a global warming.

No, that's completely false. Cold kills ten times as many people as heat. The tropics support life with much greater facility than the arctic. The Medieval Warm Period was an extraordinarily prosperous time, thanks to increased agricultural production.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 1:26:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 11:42:44 AM, fergie1 wrote:
31% of people on this website think that climate change is fake.

[IMG]http://i851.photobucket.com...[/IMG]

No, people believe that global warming crisis is false, not global warming.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 1:27:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 1:19:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/17/2011 11:00:14 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 10/17/2011 10:56:41 PM, tvellalott wrote:
As massive an impact as humans have on the environment (and I don't think anyone can deny this) the fact remains that the Earth is prone to massive temperature changes without our help. If anything, global warming may turn out to be a blessing when the next Ice Age comes. ;P

Its easier to survive an ice age than a global warming.

No, that's completely false. Cold kills ten times as many people as heat. The tropics support life with much greater facility than the arctic. The Medieval Warm Period was an extraordinarily prosperous time, thanks to increased agricultural production.

The earth has a natural way of cooling off. People tend to forget that the vast majority of the surface of the earth is water. More heat means more clouds and more cover (sunlight has a hard time penetrating clouds), you would have to seriously amplify the sun's effect many times to get the earth to warm up to the point of extinguishing all life.

The earth has no natural way to warm itself in an ice age. We would all have to live underground and synthesize our own food.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 4:26:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 11:42:44 AM, fergie1 wrote:
31% of people on this website think that climate change is fake.

[IMG]http://i851.photobucket.com...[/IMG]

I find it astonishing that you don't follow the money trails and fraud connected to the religion that is global warming. You think you can change the climate LOL
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 7:02:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 10:51:34 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/20/2011 10:32:35 AM, seraine wrote:
At 10/17/2011 11:00:14 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 10/17/2011 10:56:41 PM, tvellalott wrote:
As massive an impact as humans have on the environment (and I don't think anyone can deny this) the fact remains that the Earth is prone to massive temperature changes without our help. If anything, global warming may turn out to be a blessing when the next Ice Age comes. ;P

Its easier to survive an ice age than a global warming.

No. Just no.

Their is a certain rate of human population growth. It has always went up during warm periods (AKA global warming, which was often much "worse" than what is happening now) and down during cold periods(AKA ice ages). This is what we should expect, because the warmth means that we can grow more food. It is easier to grow food in warmer climates than in colder climates. Not only that, warmer periods actually lead to wetter and more fertile conditions. With the Sahara, it has been the warmer the wetter. Most animals and plants, including humans, would do better in a warmer climate than a colder one.

http://www.stanford.edu...

When your link says "Hippopotamuses, lions, rhinoceroses and elephants roamed the English countryside." One starts to wonder if it is all being pulled out their arse.

Lions used to live in Europe until the last Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago[1]. Another link showing that rhinos, elephants, and lions all used to live in Europe[2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.localhistories.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 7:27:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 7:02:34 PM, seraine wrote:
At 10/20/2011 10:51:34 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/20/2011 10:32:35 AM, seraine wrote:
At 10/17/2011 11:00:14 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 10/17/2011 10:56:41 PM, tvellalott wrote:
As massive an impact as humans have on the environment (and I don't think anyone can deny this) the fact remains that the Earth is prone to massive temperature changes without our help. If anything, global warming may turn out to be a blessing when the next Ice Age comes. ;P

Its easier to survive an ice age than a global warming.

No. Just no.

Their is a certain rate of human population growth. It has always went up during warm periods (AKA global warming, which was often much "worse" than what is happening now) and down during cold periods(AKA ice ages). This is what we should expect, because the warmth means that we can grow more food. It is easier to grow food in warmer climates than in colder climates. Not only that, warmer periods actually lead to wetter and more fertile conditions. With the Sahara, it has been the warmer the wetter. Most animals and plants, including humans, would do better in a warmer climate than a colder one.

http://www.stanford.edu...

When your link says "Hippopotamuses, lions, rhinoceroses and elephants roamed the English countryside." One starts to wonder if it is all being pulled out their arse.

Lions used to live in Europe until the last Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago[1]. Another link showing that rhinos, elephants, and lions all used to live in Europe[2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.localhistories.org...

Yes, but Europe is different from the English country side (whch is England, the island). The closest that Lions ever got to that was Greece, and that ended about 1,500 years before the little iceage (it was the rise of man, not the fall of tempuratures, that drove them out). Of course, going back 10 million years, you can find species similar to modern lions (refered to often as cave lions) going as far as France.

I also find it comical that the source uses lines like "One paleoclimatologist estimated that..." that is usually a sign of cherry picked data. They found the most extreme paleoclimatologist to back their preconcieved idea. According to a compliation of data estimates, the difference between the Medieval warming period and the Little ice age that followed was less than 1 degree C

http://en.wikipedia.org...

All ten studies are linked at the bottom.

That shows how just a few degrees can make a large difference. Of course, we're already warmer than the Medieval warming period right now anyway. And the temp is growing at a faster rate (meaning species have less time to adapt). I'm not shouting that the world will be engulfed by hurricanes in the next 5 years or anything. Merely pointing out the trend.

If needed, we can also get into the solar cylce with sun spots to show how it is expected to see in a stable climate, 10 years of warming, then 10 years of cooling, and repeat. But we see 10 years of fast growth, 10 years of slow decline or flatline, then 10 years of fast growth again, and repeat, so that the average is still going up.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 1:06:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 10:32:35 AM, seraine wrote:
At 10/17/2011 11:00:14 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 10/17/2011 10:56:41 PM, tvellalott wrote:
As massive an impact as humans have on the environment (and I don't think anyone can deny this) the fact remains that the Earth is prone to massive temperature changes without our help. If anything, global warming may turn out to be a blessing when the next Ice Age comes. ;P

Its easier to survive an ice age than a global warming.

No. Just no.

Their is a certain rate of human population growth. It has always went up during warm periods (AKA global warming, which was often much "worse" than what is happening now) and down during cold periods(AKA ice ages). This is what we should expect, because the warmth means that we can grow more food. It is easier to grow food in warmer climates than in colder climates. Not only that, warmer periods actually lead to wetter and more fertile conditions. With the Sahara, it has been the warmer the wetter. Most animals and plants, including humans, would do better in a warmer climate than a colder one.

http://www.stanford.edu...

I mean in the short term. I could huddle down in an ice bunker with a 50 year supply of canned soup. I cant do much in a desert.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 1:33:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 2:24:58 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Ex1. Ragnar_Rahl is a freakin contrarian.

I am not sure if he is, or if he is merely freakin, I get why you would say that though.
Merely freakin? I like the sound of that.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 1:33:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
though I'd love to know what it means :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 2:15:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/21/2011 1:33:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
though I'd love to know what it means :P

Freakin... to be a freak, to be engaged in the act of freakery...

Which sounds a bit harsh but really it's a reference to some of your positions which are a bit extreme. Of course that has no bearing on their validity. The wierdest one I can bring to mind right now is the opposition to any form of age of consent.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 2:26:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Alrighty.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 4:08:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/21/2011 1:06:08 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 10/20/2011 10:32:35 AM, seraine wrote:
At 10/17/2011 11:00:14 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 10/17/2011 10:56:41 PM, tvellalott wrote:
As massive an impact as humans have on the environment (and I don't think anyone can deny this) the fact remains that the Earth is prone to massive temperature changes without our help. If anything, global warming may turn out to be a blessing when the next Ice Age comes. ;P

Its easier to survive an ice age than a global warming.

No. Just no.

Their is a certain rate of human population growth. It has always went up during warm periods (AKA global warming, which was often much "worse" than what is happening now) and down during cold periods(AKA ice ages). This is what we should expect, because the warmth means that we can grow more food. It is easier to grow food in warmer climates than in colder climates. Not only that, warmer periods actually lead to wetter and more fertile conditions. With the Sahara, it has been the warmer the wetter. Most animals and plants, including humans, would do better in a warmer climate than a colder one.

http://www.stanford.edu...

I mean in the short term. I could huddle down in an ice bunker with a 50 year supply of canned soup. I cant do much in a desert.

Do you really think the atmosphere is capable of holding even 10% of the ocean's water volume as vapor? Forget 100%....
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 7:54:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Deserts are made from local air currents, not sun temperature. As a matter of fact, the driest place in the world is in Antartica. Still want to live in the cold?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 8:47:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 7:37:01 PM, seraine wrote:
Nope. I just did it because I felt that it was closest to my actual position, which is "I
believe it exists, though I am skeptical on Anthropogenic Global Warming. However, I believe that global warming is good and all problems it would cause are very minor, and we definitely shouldn't attempt to stop it from a cost-benefit analysis."

A cost-benefit analysis? "It is only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money."
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 8:54:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I can't take any of your opinions seriously. None of you are scientists or have extensive knowledge on this matter or background in this field. You're basically just choosing what to believe based on your political views, considering both sides of the issue present substantial evidence for their case. You probably don't know which is correct and won't or can't verify it, so you'll accept what you want and that's pretty much it. It's easy to quote other scientists who support your side, but you're basically just going on blind faith. It's not like philosophy where you can think real hard about it and draw your own conclusions. Again, both sides of the issue have put forth credible scientists with seemingly accurate (albeit conflicting) data. So who knows. Also, it's lol that sadolite talks about climate change or whatever, insinuating that it's just a political ploy or perhaps one for money... as if religion isn't both of those things. Silly. Personally, it's obvious to me that what we do can and does negatively impact the environment. I'm not sure if the result is global warming per se, but I do think environmental protection is important. I've also concluded that the pro-GW scientists are probably right, though again I don't think my opinion is any more valid than an opponent's (unless they are an unbiased scientist with a lot more knowledge on this subject than me).
President of DDO
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 9:41:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/21/2011 8:47:24 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 10/17/2011 7:37:01 PM, seraine wrote:
Nope. I just did it because I felt that it was closest to my actual position, which is "I
believe it exists, though I am skeptical on Anthropogenic Global Warming. However, I believe that global warming is good and all problems it would cause are very minor, and we definitely shouldn't attempt to stop it from a cost-benefit analysis."

A cost-benefit analysis? "It is only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money."

Spending $775 billion wouldn't do anything measurable to stop global warming[1]. And no one has shown me that global warming is actually bad. People have shown me that global warming is almost always good. Seriously, what are the bad effects of global warming? A meter rise in sea level, a possible glacier melting? Is preventing that worth trillions of dollar, when we can just mitigate the effects for far less?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 11:11:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/21/2011 7:54:11 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Deserts are made from local air currents, not sun temperature. As a matter of fact, the driest place in the world is in Antartica. Still want to live in the cold?

Yes, and no.

They are made by air currents, but also by the topography of the landscape and air temp.

Antartica is very dry because cold air cannot hold very much water, so you have little water in the air to rain down (or snow down) to begin with (it also isn't the driest place, that belongs to the Atacama desert in South America, it is nearly impossible to get the right conditions needed for rain).

When you raise the air temp, the air can hold more water, and if you raise the water temp, the water evaporates into the air more easily. However, warmer air also holds water more strongly, so places that are infront of mountain ranges, like Western Oregon and Washington, will see an increase in rain, as the clouds need to release their water to get over the mountains, while Eastern Washington and Oregon, will see less, as the warmer air moving along, will hold onto water better, and so not release as much.

Different places will see different effects.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 11:12:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/21/2011 8:54:28 AM, Danielle wrote:
I can't take any of your opinions seriously. None of you are scientists or have extensive knowledge on this matter or background in this field. You're basically just choosing what to believe based on your political views, considering both sides of the issue present substantial evidence for their case. You probably don't know which is correct and won't or can't verify it, so you'll accept what you want and that's pretty much it. It's easy to quote other scientists who support your side, but you're basically just going on blind faith. It's not like philosophy where you can think real hard about it and draw your own conclusions. Again, both sides of the issue have put forth credible scientists with seemingly accurate (albeit conflicting) data. So who knows. Also, it's lol that sadolite talks about climate change or whatever, insinuating that it's just a political ploy or perhaps one for money... as if religion isn't both of those things. Silly. Personally, it's obvious to me that what we do can and does negatively impact the environment. I'm not sure if the result is global warming per se, but I do think environmental protection is important. I've also concluded that the pro-GW scientists are probably right, though again I don't think my opinion is any more valid than an opponent's (unless they are an unbiased scientist with a lot more knowledge on this subject than me).

That sounds like a lazy way to just dismiss other people's positions.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 11:24:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/21/2011 11:12:17 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/21/2011 8:54:28 AM, Danielle wrote:
I can't take any of your opinions seriously. None of you are scientists or have extensive knowledge on this matter or background in this field. You're basically just choosing what to believe based on your political views, considering both sides of the issue present substantial evidence for their case. You probably don't know which is correct and won't or can't verify it, so you'll accept what you want and that's pretty much it. It's easy to quote other scientists who support your side, but you're basically just going on blind faith. It's not like philosophy where you can think real hard about it and draw your own conclusions. Again, both sides of the issue have put forth credible scientists with seemingly accurate (albeit conflicting) data. So who knows. Also, it's lol that sadolite talks about climate change or whatever, insinuating that it's just a political ploy or perhaps one for money... as if religion isn't both of those things. Silly. Personally, it's obvious to me that what we do can and does negatively impact the environment. I'm not sure if the result is global warming per se, but I do think environmental protection is important. I've also concluded that the pro-GW scientists are probably right, though again I don't think my opinion is any more valid than an opponent's (unless they are an unbiased scientist with a lot more knowledge on this subject than me).

That sounds like a lazy way to just dismiss other people's positions.

That sounds like a lazy way to sum up other people's paragraphs. :P

She's just pointing out the lack of weight behind any of the people's positions here. No-one here is a climate scientist, or even seems to be that familiar with the science at a layman's level.