25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists

submitted by sawboss from (youtube.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (35 children)

Saidit is seeming more and more like a right-wing propaganda dissemination site everyday.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Your sentiment is understandable.

Groupthink exists on both political sides. The question is, how can you ever be certain that the side the you are on is factually correct?

Do you truly believe that the "right side" is wrong about everything???

How would you know if you don't listen openly to their arguments?

I'm formerly left-leaning, but I've realized that choosing a side is not a wise decision if I'm interested in objective, and measurable facts.

Political discourse is predicated on misleading the public.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I understand your point but it's pretty easy to know your on the right side when the other side is stuff like 9/11 was Jewish conspracy, Vaccines cause autism, NASA says global warming isn't real, LGBT vegan communism is turning the frogs gay type stuff

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Is it? I'll not so sure.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes. It is.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How do you know?

I agree that many of those appear absurd, but have you thoroughly investigated each and come to this conclusion on your own?

Google is now using it's algorithms to censor an alarming volume of formerly available info.
If you look for info on the major search engines then you be inundated with propaganda.

If you were to decide to investigate any supposedly ridiculous claim, then I would strongly recommend asking the most credible source where to find info, so you can decide for yourself based on any available evidence.

The most receptive and open-minded source that I am aware of is JasonCarswell.
He is exceptionally open-minded and I consider him a reliable source of info; even though I disagree with him on a number of issues.

The only fact that you can always be certain of is: You don't know, what you don't know.

I do know however that 3 buildings collapsed into their own footprint on 9/11, and that one of them was never damaged by any aircraft..
This is obvious controlled demolition. Terrorists didn't do this, and it was never investigated as a crime.
Wouldn't you agree that this should be investigated as a crime?

[–]endopassing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It's because they congregate where they're not yet banned for inciting violence or general destructive or hateful behavior.

No social network can survive in the long run without curbing hatefulness. So either saidit will deal sensibly with right wingers or it will descent into voat and disappear.

[–]Tom9152 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Left-wingers are the most hateful people. The left are anti-everything. Speech, guns, fetuses, capitalism, truth, carbon, white, male, christian, and more.

[–]endopassing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Left-wingers are the most hateful people.

Disagree, hateful people are the most hateful people. Partisan people (like yourself) tend to call out haters from the other side while silently or openly supporting haters from their own side - including supporting the violence they perpetrate.

The only way forward is to oppose all haters. Right now, right wing terrorism is far more prevalent than left wing or religious terrorism. Some years ago other groups topped the list of terrorists. But the last couple of years right wing terrorism is on top. So do humanity a favor and oppose all violence not just what you see as "the other side".

[–]fred_red_beans 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You contradict yourself:

So either saidit will deal sensibly with right wingers or it will descent into voat and disappear.

The only way forward is to oppose all haters.

Right now, right wing terrorism is far more prevalent than left wing or religious terrorism.

So do humanity a favor and oppose all violence not just what you see as "the other side".

Which you have posited the other side being the right wing.

Last I checked we are all individuals who can make up our own minds regardless of what anyone labels us.

[–]endopassing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I oppose all haters, left wing, religious, sports, incels, sjws. However, right now right wingers are prolifilic with a consistent destructive behavior. Therefore we need to specifically deal with them if we want our environment to thrive and continue to be friendly. Same thing if sports fan would troll every thread pushing whatever hate against some other team.

[–]fred_red_beans 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

OK, you assert that right wingers are prolific with destructive behavior. What constitutes a right winger? What specifically has been destroyed by right wingers?

I see the perception of left wingers vs right wingers as dividing people and causing strife between people while distracting people from real atrocities in places like Lybia, Syria, Yemen where families are literelly ripped apart from bombing campaigns from the US and NATO. Last I checked, those were "bi-partisian" efforts.

[–]endopassing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I see the perception of left wingers vs right wingers as dividing people and causing strife between people while distracting people from real atrocities

I agree, I may need to find other words to describe the type of people I'm talking about. What I'm talking about are people who are particularly derogative while promoting hate against women, poc, open racism etc. When these people don't just take part in civilized debate but start systematically spam and troll, which they did on reddit and do on voat and 4chan, then I think the platform needs to deal with it if it wants to survive.

I'm not saying "they must" but if they don't get that kind of vile environment under control it's not a place for me.

[–]fred_red_beans 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree, I don't like the environment on reddit or voat either.

[–]Tom9152 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

| people who are particularly derogative while promoting hate against women, poc, open racism etc.

Islam law is woman are property, blacks are slaves, and Arabs are superior. So you're an islamaphobe.

Also criticism isn't hate.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Islam law is woman are property, blacks are slaves, and Arabs are superior

So is Christian law, if you're referring to deeply conservative (i.e. right wing) interpretation of fundamental scriptures.

So you're pointing to yet another example of how destructive right wing people are - whether they call themselves Christians or Muslims or white supremacists.

[–]Tom9152 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Antifa proves you wrong.

[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

What I've seen is just a couple of users vomiting this shit everywhere. Maybe it will calm down after they burn through their backlog.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Do you believe that the environment is so fragile that adding a total of 0.01% CO2 (over the course of 120 years) would throw the environmental system into chaos?

[–]anescient 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

001 and I were having a conversation if you don't mind.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It's not that I mind. This is a public forum.

I apologise if I overlooked some indication that you were having a private conversation.

In the future, please use the personal message system if you are engaging in private discourse.

Please explain what I overlooked, so I can respect your privacy in the future.

Moving on: Now that you and I are conversing:

anescient, do you believe that the environment is so fragile that adding a total of 0.01% CO2 (over the course of 120 years) would throw the environmental system into chaos?

Can you provide any similar examples in the real world? Thanks. :-D

[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Me-ow. I shot you some sass because I was talking about saidit, not this particular post, and you came out swinging with a non-sequitur loaded question.

As for this thread, now...

CO2 accounts for about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and it's a top contributor to the greenhouse effect, so 0.01% is actually pretty major.

I don't know if I'd call it "fragile", but kinda, yea. I know about chaos; I've used it as a tool many times. Complex systems are a bitch, see: stock markets.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I think you misunderstood my response. But that's fine.

CO2 accounts for about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and it's a top contributor to the greenhouse effect, so 0.01% is actually pretty major.

Is it? where is the evidence?

If the "top contributor to the green house gas effect" CO2 increased by 33% (0.01%/0.03%), then why haven't we seen comparable increases in temperature?

[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I think your response was passive aggressive. But that's fine.

Is it? where is the evidence?

Is what? Is the composition?

You can certainly get there via separating the air, something we've got going on at an industrial scale. You can get there with absorption spectroscopy, too.

... or, is a top contributor? (a top contributor not the top contributor)

Spectroscopy, again, and some math: we know how this molecule reacts to different frequencies of light, and we know how much of it is up there. To corroborate, satellites observing the planet find a conspicuous drop in radiation right at CO2's favorite color. The planet seems to be hoarding infrared.

why haven't we seen comparable increases in temperature?

We... have. I'm not even going to bother with the CO2/Temperature history plot because there's no chance you haven't seen it, and there's no chance you trust it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting with this statement, but you have failed to answer the a fault basic question.

If the "top contributor to the green house gas effect" CO2 increased by 33% (0.01%/0.03%), then why haven't we seen comparable increases in temperature?

[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Surely you don't mean, "why haven't we seen a 33% increase in temperature"?

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe it will calm down

No it won't. I didn't die down on voat or 4chan - or reddit for that matter, reddit fought it down while 4chan is dealing with it now and voat is dying - if not already dead.

[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

yyyyeah. shit. On closer inspection, these are not new user accounts doing this.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have started a policy of blocking users who I find are trolling, either intentionally or by being too steeped in stupidity.