Response To The Climate Denier Unabomber Billboard

Submitted by: Squrlz4Sale 4 years ago Science

According to the Heartland Institute, only ""murderers, tyrants, and madmen"" accept global warming science.
There are 54 comments:
Male 126
Looks like CrakrJak got pwned pretty bad by Squriz4Sale.
0
Reply
Male 1,360
I`m amazed that people still argue with Crakrjakass it`s useless he`s an obnoxious obtuse person, if you show him the sky and tell hem it`s blue he`ll find a way to prove you that because you`re a liberal/socialist/progressist/different it can`t be blue or you`re imposing the color blue and he`ll show charts and articles that join his point of vue.Let him soak in his stinking "knowledge" and drown on its own.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Blackcatseye: Thanks for participating. But do I really need to explain that the amount of CO2 released by opening bottles of soda pop is negligible compared to the 32 gigatons (2008) of CO2 that`s released every year from the burning of fossil fuels by cars, trucks, planes, factories, and power plants? Just the CO2 released by the trucks delivering the soda dwarfs the CO2 in those bottles.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CrakrJak: I`ve managed to find a little more info on your Dr. Spencer, the "Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show." He actually makes a cameo appearance in a couple of Peter Sinclair`s videos as a crank.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CrakrJak: Thanks for letting me know where you got your chart. That Dr. Spencer is an odd duck--a scientist who rejects both the theory of evolution and anthropogenic global warming.

In claiming that my NASA chart is 11 years out of date, you`ve committed an error. See the light gray vertical lines? Those are 10 year increments. See how the last data point is just to the right of the 2010 line? Yeah, that would be the year 2011.

The chart is an updated version of one originally published by James Hansen, the head of NASA`s Goddard Institute, in 2006. A page providing links to the peer-reviewed article, a summary of the methods used to develop the chart, as well as all of the data used in the chart, can be found here.
0
Reply
Female 685
How ironic that it starts with a Coca-Cola ad. The soft drink industry probably emits as much carbon into the atmosphere as anything else.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Squrlz4Sale: The chart I posted came from Roy Spencer Phd. Climatologist`s website. It doesn`t have to be "peer reviewed" to be accurate. He`s a well respected scientist that explains, in scientific detail, exactly what is going on with the earth`s climate.

Your chart is not only eleven years out-of-date but is highly inaccurate. It doesn`t even give a source(s) for it`s numbers.

Also, as FP said, Thatcher finally realized that AGW was a scam and did a 180º turn on her opinion of it before she died.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
I give "mainstream science" the same credence as I give the "mainstream media."
0
Reply
Male 1,444
IMHO it does not matter if man effects global warming or not, but you don`t sh*t in your bed.
0
Reply
Male 294
Well, I haven`t killed anyone(at least yet, and if I did it probably wasn`t intentional), I`ve never controlled anything more than maybe a videogame, and they`ve never complained, so I don`t think I`m tyrannical...

So I guess that just means I must be a madman. What happens if I murder someone at some point though? Am I still eligible to be a madman, or am I only allowed to be one of the three? If I go to jail and come to tyrannically rule a gang, will I no longer be considered a murderer and be set free?

On a more serious note, even if global warming didn`t exist, the fact still is that we`re pumping all sorts of crap into the environment that doesn`t belong there.

Global warming may be a more immediate threat, but we can`t just keep releasing pollutants and expect everything to be ok indefinitely. Eventually it`ll all come to a head, whether in the form of climate change or some other event.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]The Earth will continue to change and evolve while we exist on it[/quote]
You`ve been saying the Earth evolves, but you haven`t a clue what the word `evolve` means. I think you mean adaptation.

[quote]Fail Fail Fail. [/quote]
Sums up your comments, you think she`s talking about something she isn`t.
0
Reply
Male 787
But I do have one interesting factoid to mention. A 1degree C climate shift on the equator means the seasons at the poles would be much more drastically affected and millions of gallons of glacial ice melt is caused.
0
Reply
Male 787
This is obviously an inflammatory billboard and the people who put it up are insane. People should reach their own conclusions without a right wing billboard screaming at Americans` eyes with its` inane and ignorance driven messages.

That is the morality of it. I can`t quite comment on the actual science of it because I am honestly not familiar enough to make comment on that aspect of this topic. Google is only a click away but there were many contradicting studies and I don`t know who to believe. In my book, that means believe no one.
0
Reply
Male 37,890

randomxnp - Yes, in fact I have read the emails Fox News claims as proof of global warming conspiracy. I didn`t cherry pick one line out, I read it in full context.

But if you sleep better at night thinking Thousands of people are pulling off a hoax, then good for you. Use sunblock, but sleep well.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Randomxnp: I`ll tell you exactly what I told Leesah earlier:

Sure--isha conspiracy! And Isaac Asimov, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Bill Gates, the U.S. Navy, the National Acedemy of Sciences, and NASA are ALL in on it.

Every one of those individuals and institutions--and there are many, many more--supports the science of AGW. But you know better, huh? =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CrakrJak: A quick image search shows that your chart is not peer-reviewed and that it`s a favorite of highly-partisan websites such as "The Climate Scam." It`s junk science.

I`d rather get my charts from NASA scientists, thank you. Here`s one presenting the same information yours purports to, only this one goes back to 1880, when modern temperature measurements began.



You`ll notice that over 120 years, the rise in global temperature has been nearly a deg C (1.8 deg F). And the anomalies keep growing year over year. Over a dozen different climatic models have been run on the data, and the only way to account for nearly 2 deg F of global warming in such a short period is by the addition of fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere. In short, the data have been confirming the theory of AGW.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Gerry1of1

You still haven`t read the emails have you? You still don`t actually know the difference between the opinions of sceptics and that of True Believers, do you? You are still, in fact, arguing from a position of complete ignorance aren`t you?
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Squrlz4Sale

So what? Thatcher was out of office before the evidence was available that CAGW was nonsense was found. That evidence is now out, so why do you still believe? Because socialist powermongers have told you to believe. You have no knowledge, no degree in Earth or hard environmental sciences.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
"According to the Heartland Institute, only ``murderers, tyrants, and madmen`` accept global warming science."

WhT truly idiotic thing to say. What Heartland said was that a multiple murderer has this as part of his philosophy. Exactly the same as the climate hysterics claims that some sceptics happen to be murderous lunatics - in fact more than one Church of Global Warming website took down previous articles just so they could hide their hypocrisy in criticising Heartland
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CrakrJak:

...and here comes CrakrJak, right on time, discharging his usual shotgun blasts of falsehoods.

Despite your assertion, Margaret Thatcher was, indeed, speaking about global warming in this video`s clips, NOT the ozone layer. The clips come from her "Speech to United Nations General Assembly" on Nov. 8, 1989. If you`d like to read the text of her entire speech--in which she describes at length the dangers of man`s release of CO2 into the atmosphere--it`s located on the Margaret Thatcher website here.

I won`t hold my breath waiting for an admission of error on your part.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Crakrjak: Incorrect. The Thatcher footage, or at least the parts I cross-referenced, are from Thatcher`s address to the U.N. General Assembly about manmade climate change due to CO2 emissions as well as the ozone layer. Here is the text:

Thatcher - Global Warming

Now, I`m not sure either side of the debate should really use Margaret Thatcher, since she also wrote critical things about global warming science shortly before she died.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
And again, A .2ºC average anomaly does not confirm global warming.

0
Reply
Male 17,512
Thatcher was speaking about the Ozone layer, NOT `global warming`. Fail Fail Fail.

The `Ozone Hole` was blown out of proportion and most scientists recognize that now. Our earth`s ozone layer repairs itself in the upper atmosphere.

Yet people are still confused about it even today. Ground level ozone is called smog, it`s very bad for human health. But it does eventually drift into the upper atmosphere over time. Mankind never produced enough aerosols to hurt our ozone layer because we were producing ozone in much larger quantities and still are.
0
Reply
Male 37,890

5Cats - "Hubris" means pride or arrogance. But you are probably right. The worlds scientists got together at some secret convention and concocted a global-sized scheeme to fool people, then they got politicians to work with them to pull it off.

Look up "gullible"
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Leesah: I`d be happy to have a serious discussion of this issue with you, but only if you promise to debate honestly. By "honestly," I mean that you`ll admit mistakes when you`ve made them, avoid using straw man arguments, and avoid ad hominem attacks. Naturally, I`ll agree to do the same.

The conversation is likely to go for an hour (which is all the time either of us, I`m sure, cares to spend on this).

Deal?
0
Reply
Male 1,950
*yawn*
0
Reply
Female 1,566
Let`s just look, for one second, at the statement from the National Academies on climate change.

"Animals, plants, and other living beings around the globe are moving, adapting, and, in some cases, dying as a direct or indirect result of environmental shifts associated with our changing climate."

That has happened for billions of years. Species die. They go extinct. New ones replace them. By freaking out over not even 1% of temperature fluctuation, humans have sprung into SAVE THE EARTH mode and are trying to preserve things EXACTLY AS THEY ARE TODAY. We are trying to HALT EVOLUTION. & you can`t see why some people say "you know, this seems like a really drastic overreaction".
0
Reply
Female 1,566
@Squirz: So far in this conversation all you`ve done is attempt to insult my intelligence and spew nothing more than NO THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING LOOK AT THIS LIST OF PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT ME!!! where I`ve been trying to point out that, yes, while there is an issue that needs to be addressed, we need to view it factually without liberal media scare tactic scams in our faces. Why are you so against meeting issues head on with scientific fact instead of government funded "research".
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Leesah: You`re still upset about the M&Ms thing, aren`t you? Do you need a hug? =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 2,143
Inbreeding is sad.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"much worse than any harm caused by the remote possibility that climate scientists are lying, I think the solution is clear."

We don`t have to agree on the cause to agree on a solution and debating the cause doesn`t mean the solution is coming about any slower. So, what exactly is the point you`re trying to make here?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
It seems to me that you are interpreting the AGW arguments as hyperbole. Okay, I get that. But since the potential consequences of not reducing emissions are much worse than any harm caused by the remote possibility that climate scientists are lying, I think the solution is clear.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Leesah: Since it appears you`re not very big on facts or, you know, "learning," I`ll explain what the Dunning-Kruger Effect is: People who lack ability or knowledge in a particular area are unable, due to that very same deficiency, to recognize their own incompetence.

Quite simply, you don`t know enough to even recognize how much you don`t know.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"The position you so boldly have taken to defend can best be characterized as "anti-science."

The Earth will continue to evolve and change regardless of humans trying to stop it is... anti-science? Please, help me think of a reason to continue to acknowledge your terrible trolling.

"I would like to know why you think we shouldn`t reduce CO2 emissions."

No one said we shouldn`t reduce CO2 emissions. Both sides support reducing CO2 emissions and finding greener energy. The argument is "HUMANS ARE 100% AT FAULT FOR THIS WE ARE KILLING OURSELVES OMG WE HAVE TO STOP THIS BEFORE WE DESTROY THE EARTH!!!!!" vs. "The Earth will continue to change and evolve while we exist on it, let`s not contribute damage on behalf of our selfish species more than absolutely necessary".
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"The debate isn`t Do Something vs Do Nothing it`s Natural Cause vs Man Made."

That`s why I asked what you guys have against CO2-emission reduction. I know you will never admit that humans are warming the planet, so instead I would like to know why you think we shouldn`t reduce CO2 emissions.

Anyone who has been to a metropolitan area knows that fossil fuels have a terrible impact on the local area. Los Angeles, where I live, has terrible smog. It used to be even worse, but strict regulations have actually made it a bit better. If we were to get off fossil fuels, these areas would be much healthier places to live.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Leesah: I`m going to go out on a limb here: You haven`t even watched this video, have you?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Leesah: Respectfully, you couldn`t be more wrong regarding your characterization of the names and institutions I listed. Every single one of them accepts the science behind AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). The position you so boldly have taken to defend can best be characterized as "anti-science."

As for your calling supporters of global warming science "ignorant," I encourage you to google "Dunning-Kruger effect."
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"I would really like to know what the argument is against the reduction/elimination of the release of CO2 into the atmosphere."

The debate isn`t Do Something vs Do Nothing it`s Natural Cause vs Man Made. For some reason hundreds of thousands of you are convinced that , after billions of years, the Earth has come to a total evolutionary standstill and now everything that happens is because we, humans, control it. It`s almost like you`re going backwards! Everything revolves around humans, the sun revolves around the earth. There`s really no hope for people so ignorant.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
@Squirz: Most of those people/places support "global climate change" as in "the Earth continues to change and evolve around us no matter how hard we try to deny it or pin the blame on certain group of people". Not the same hilarious money grabbing scare scam Al Gore spews.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
I would really like to know what the argument is against the reduction/elimination of the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
0
Reply
Male 36,509
@Gerry1 #2: Humans are more powerful than all the creatures on Earth combined, Mother Nature and THE SUN! WE CONTROL THE ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM!!!

And getting Canada to lower it`s emmissions by 6% will TOTALLY fix things!

Look up "hubris"...
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Leesah: Yeah, isha conspiracy, and Margaret Thatcher, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Bill Gates, the U.S. Navy, the National Acedemy of Sciences, and NASA are ALL in on it.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 3,314
It`s a scientific fact that people will believe anything they read. I know it`s true, because I read it online yesterday!
0
Reply
Female 1,566
*those broke ass corrupt scientists, because no legit researcher is accepting money to dump unreviewed "fact" into the public domain.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"with aparently nothing to gain for fooling the masses."

Except, you know, funding for their future research from the government/lobbyists. But nahhhhhhh, those broke ass scientists with nowhere else to turn to fund their life work would never be willing to skew a little data in order to help "convince" a few stupid citizens that all those lights they left on when they left the room are melting polar ice caps and flooding the world! That .7% temperature increase is going to kill us all! We need a donation of $100 from all of you to research it and make it stop or you will all die! Natural temperature fluctuation is a lie! Now hand over the money!

You can keep on falling for the scam, I`m going to save my money for retirement.
0
Reply
Male 37,890

Global Warming... hmmm. What to believe? It seems there are only two possabilities and they are;

1: A global conspiracy of climatologists and politicians to hoodwink the public into thinking we are causing horrable damage to our environment. This conspiracy requires the cooperation of scientists from all over, with aparently nothing to gain for fooling the masses.

2: Global Warming is real.

Occam`s Razor.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Profworm: The reason that you see so few videos done by actual scientists is probably because the scientists are preoccupied with doing the research and publishing it in the peer-reviewed journals. Their passion and skills aren`t in the area of mass communication, but science.

That said, Peter Sinclair (the author of this video) is probably the best person on the planet when it comes to interviewing real climate scientists and presenting their work in accessible videos. This is in contrast to the propaganda that`s been funded by the fossil fuel industry and right-wing think tanks, which either misinterprets the science or deliberately misrepresents it.

If you`d like to see another short video of Sinclair`s that compares the real science with the spin, I recommend this.
0
Reply
Male 483
The worst thing about any politically charged issue these days is that all the non-nice individuals have the biggest megaphones. I believe that there is something to climate change, but when was the last time any of us saw a video about it done by real scientists rather than angry laymen?
0
Reply
Male 37,890

tl:dw
0
Reply
Male 1,083
I don`t like how they use New Orleans as an example, it was just a strong hurricane that took a specific path through a poorly designed city.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@FredSupdman: I suspect the reason that Peter Sinclair chose to start and end this video with Thatcher is because, like Reagan, she`s one of the patron saints of the far right.

Regardless of what one thinks of her other achievements, she was certainly good in the science department. Not only did she warn of global warming, she was a key player in goading the world to do something about CFCs and ozone depletion.
0
Reply
Female 5
Alright, I know global warming exists, and while the point stands that it is not only psychopaths who believe in global warming, they really should have chosen someone other than Magde to prove their point. What with her psychopathic assaults on industry, the north of England, welfare and the working class.
0
Reply
Male 653
Some would say that Margaret Thatcher was a murderer, tyrant and mad (wo)man.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Link: Response To The Climate Denier Unabomber Billboard [Rate Link] - According to the Heartland Institute, only ``murderers, tyrants, and madmen`` accept global warming science.
0
Reply