Poll: Is climate change real?
Yes but human contribution is negligible
Yes and humans are part of it in a significant way
No. It's a conspiracy
No. God told me
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Climate denialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2014, 03:03 PM
RE: Climate denialism
(22-08-2014 02:51 PM)Walter Wrote:  I have been observing science fraud (today, confirmation bias) for just over 40 years now. A big reason I am skeptical of carbon dioxide fear mongering is the history of animal fat fear mongering. The same scientific community we are supposed to trust today started an experiment back in the 1950s to promote fear of animal fat. Congress put its stamp of approval on this confirmation bias in the 1970s, with the entire population of the United States being used as non-consenting participants.

This pseudo-science or confirmation bias (personally, I would use the F word) is still going on today. If any sentence about science deserves an exclamation point, it was that last one. Just take a look at the USDA’s MyPlate. Fat is not on the plate.

One might wish, hope or pray that climate science is different, but it is the same community represented by the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Why do you think I should trust the same community which continues this fat experiment started some 60 years ago? I just thank Jesus that my mother, the housewife, was anti-science and ignored my community. Today, she would be described by rationalists as an anti-science Republican. What I loved about her anti-science, skeptical attitude was when I visited, the butter, cream, ½ & ½ , whole milk, bacon, sausage, eggs, chicken leg quarters, pepperoni, cheese, suet draped roasts and French silk chocolate pie (butter, raw eggs, lard laden crust) were still being served. She was a great example of being skeptical while scientists were attempting to frighten her. In a way, she just put her middle finger up to the science community. She did not have a degree in nutrition science, so she really had no business questioning the science. She also had the support of her anti-science Republican husband, the mathematician / electrical engineer.

What did happen is that many citizens, unlike my mother, trusted that scientific community and took too much fat off the table. It was replaced with solid vegetable oils, sugar laden dressings, fat free milk and skinless, boneless chicken breast fillets (Yum!). The results of that fat removal have not been all that great.

It is far too late for an apology from the scientific community for the fear mongering started 60 years ago. And I think that is a big reason that they cannot even stop the experiment.

Does this concern any rationalists or atheists at all? Do you really think the climate community differs from the nutrition community? They both fit under the science community, just like physics and chemistry. My two sisters, who also dismiss the nutrition community, try their best to convince me to trust the climate one. I tell them I like to be consistent.


Ok so your a general idiot good to know.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
22-08-2014, 03:08 PM
RE: Climate denialism
(22-08-2014 03:03 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 02:51 PM)Walter Wrote:  I have been observing science fraud (today, confirmation bias) for just over 40 years now. A big reason I am skeptical of carbon dioxide fear mongering is the history of animal fat fear mongering. The same scientific community we are supposed to trust today started an experiment back in the 1950s to promote fear of animal fat. Congress put its stamp of approval on this confirmation bias in the 1970s, with the entire population of the United States being used as non-consenting participants.

This pseudo-science or confirmation bias (personally, I would use the F word) is still going on today. If any sentence about science deserves an exclamation point, it was that last one. Just take a look at the USDA’s MyPlate. Fat is not on the plate.

One might wish, hope or pray that climate science is different, but it is the same community represented by the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Why do you think I should trust the same community which continues this fat experiment started some 60 years ago? I just thank Jesus that my mother, the housewife, was anti-science and ignored my community. Today, she would be described by rationalists as an anti-science Republican. What I loved about her anti-science, skeptical attitude was when I visited, the butter, cream, ½ & ½ , whole milk, bacon, sausage, eggs, chicken leg quarters, pepperoni, cheese, suet draped roasts and French silk chocolate pie (butter, raw eggs, lard laden crust) were still being served. She was a great example of being skeptical while scientists were attempting to frighten her. In a way, she just put her middle finger up to the science community. She did not have a degree in nutrition science, so she really had no business questioning the science. She also had the support of her anti-science Republican husband, the mathematician / electrical engineer.

What did happen is that many citizens, unlike my mother, trusted that scientific community and took too much fat off the table. It was replaced with solid vegetable oils, sugar laden dressings, fat free milk and skinless, boneless chicken breast fillets (Yum!). The results of that fat removal have not been all that great.

It is far too late for an apology from the scientific community for the fear mongering started 60 years ago. And I think that is a big reason that they cannot even stop the experiment.

Does this concern any rationalists or atheists at all? Do you really think the climate community differs from the nutrition community? They both fit under the science community, just like physics and chemistry. My two sisters, who also dismiss the nutrition community, try their best to convince me to trust the climate one. I tell them I like to be consistent.


Ok so your a general idiot good to know.

No, no, Rev, let's hear him out.

"The scientific community" (all of it, I guess?) was once wrong about something else in another field.
THEREFORE,
"They" are wrong about... everything? No, can't be everything. This thing in particular? But then that still needs to be specified somehow...

Nor was I aware that the diets of every American were apparently set by law from Congress. Because Congressional delegates and bureaucrats are totally the same thing as scientists.

It's all one big reptiloid conspiracy, don't'cha know.

Far better to rely on the raw truthiness of feels. That's a much better way to understand the world.
Hobo

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like cjlr's post
22-08-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: Climate denialism
(22-08-2014 03:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 03:03 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Ok so your a general idiot good to know.

No, no, Rev, let's hear him out.

"The scientific community" (all of it, I guess?) was once wrong about something else in another field.
THEREFORE,
"They" are wrong about... everything? No, can't be everything. This thing in particular? But then that still needs to be specified somehow...

Nor was I aware that the diets of every American were apparently set by law from Congress. Because Congressional delegates and bureaucrats are totally the same thing as scientists.

It's all one big reptiloid conspiracy, don't'cha know.

Far better to rely on the raw truthiness of feels. That's a much better way to understand the world.
Hobo

Yeah, and like, I heard once that some scientists once said the world is flat, so like vaccines are bad, big pharma don't you know...

FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 05:57 PM
Re: RE: Climate denialism
(22-08-2014 02:51 PM)Walter Wrote:  I have been observing science fraud (today, confirmation bias) for just over 40 years now. A big reason I am skeptical of carbon dioxide fear mongering is the history of animal fat fear mongering. The same scientific community we are supposed to trust today started an experiment back in the 1950s to promote fear of animal fat. Congress put its stamp of approval on this confirmation bias in the 1970s, with the entire population of the United States being used as non-consenting participants.

This pseudo-science or confirmation bias (personally, I would use the F word) is still going on today. If any sentence about science deserves an exclamation point, it was that last one. Just take a look at the USDA’s MyPlate. Fat is not on the plate.

One might wish, hope or pray that climate science is different, but it is the same community represented by the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Why do you think I should trust the same community which continues this fat experiment started some 60 years ago? I just thank Jesus that my mother, the housewife, was anti-science and ignored my community. Today, she would be described by rationalists as an anti-science Republican. What I loved about her anti-science, skeptical attitude was when I visited, the butter, cream, ½ & ½ , whole milk, bacon, sausage, eggs, chicken leg quarters, pepperoni, cheese, suet draped roasts and French silk chocolate pie (butter, raw eggs, lard laden crust) were still being served. She was a great example of being skeptical while scientists were attempting to frighten her. In a way, she just put her middle finger up to the science community. She did not have a degree in nutrition science, so she really had no business questioning the science. She also had the support of her anti-science Republican husband, the mathematician / electrical engineer.

What did happen is that many citizens, unlike my mother, trusted that scientific community and took too much fat off the table. It was replaced with solid vegetable oils, sugar laden dressings, fat free milk and skinless, boneless chicken breast fillets (Yum!). The results of that fat removal have not been all that great.

It is far too late for an apology from the scientific community for the fear mongering started 60 years ago. And I think that is a big reason that they cannot even stop the experiment.

Does this concern any rationalists or atheists at all? Do you really think the climate community differs from the nutrition community? They both fit under the science community, just like physics and chemistry. My two sisters, who also dismiss the nutrition community, try their best to convince me to trust the climate one. I tell them I like to be consistent.
Not one single comment about the global carbon cycle or any answers to my questions.

Are you here to discuss climate change or preach about your distrust of science you don't understand?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
22-08-2014, 06:20 PM
RE: Climate denialism
And I still don't know why I should care about your bs, BS chem degree or you being a salesmen.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 08:33 PM
RE: Climate denialism
(22-08-2014 02:51 PM)Walter Wrote:  I have been observing science fraud (today, confirmation bias) for just over 40 years now. A big reason I am skeptical of carbon dioxide fear mongering is the history of animal fat fear mongering. The same scientific community we are supposed to trust today started an experiment back in the 1950s to promote fear of animal fat. Congress put its stamp of approval on this confirmation bias in the 1970s, with the entire population of the United States being used as non-consenting participants.

This pseudo-science or confirmation bias (personally, I would use the F word) is still going on today. If any sentence about science deserves an exclamation point, it was that last one. Just take a look at the USDA’s MyPlate. Fat is not on the plate.

One might wish, hope or pray that climate science is different, but it is the same community represented by the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Why do you think I should trust the same community which continues this fat experiment started some 60 years ago? I just thank Jesus that my mother, the housewife, was anti-science and ignored my community. Today, she would be described by rationalists as an anti-science Republican. What I loved about her anti-science, skeptical attitude was when I visited, the butter, cream, ½ & ½ , whole milk, bacon, sausage, eggs, chicken leg quarters, pepperoni, cheese, suet draped roasts and French silk chocolate pie (butter, raw eggs, lard laden crust) were still being served. She was a great example of being skeptical while scientists were attempting to frighten her. In a way, she just put her middle finger up to the science community. She did not have a degree in nutrition science, so she really had no business questioning the science. She also had the support of her anti-science Republican husband, the mathematician / electrical engineer.

What did happen is that many citizens, unlike my mother, trusted that scientific community and took too much fat off the table. It was replaced with solid vegetable oils, sugar laden dressings, fat free milk and skinless, boneless chicken breast fillets (Yum!). The results of that fat removal have not been all that great.

It is far too late for an apology from the scientific community for the fear mongering started 60 years ago. And I think that is a big reason that they cannot even stop the experiment.

Does this concern any rationalists or atheists at all? Do you really think the climate community differs from the nutrition community? They both fit under the science community, just like physics and chemistry. My two sisters, who also dismiss the nutrition community, try their best to convince me to trust the climate one. I tell them I like to be consistent.

Except they are not the same community. Your comparison is close to idiotic.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
23-08-2014, 08:29 PM
RE: Climate denialism
Where are our climate change deniers?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 10:34 PM
RE: Climate denialism
(23-08-2014 08:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Where are our climate change deniers?

If we're lucky, they died of exposure. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
25-08-2014, 05:51 AM
RE: Climate denialism
I really hate it when on a cold day some dipshit says, "So much for global warming right!"

I want to slap them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: