I should be able to advocate my ideology.

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

We've ALL been brainwashed since we were born with propaganda. Are you strong enough to actually look at counter narratives thoroughly to make up your mind for your self?

Funny enough, I did. I grew up in a borderline cult that told me that Native Americans were descended from a single family of Jews that came here in 600 B.C. Part of moving beyond that was re-examining what I'd been told now that I was on my own. Been there, done that. Did that for the climate change debate, did it for the holocaust (why do you think I knew about "IBM and the Holocaust? Because I had read the fucking book about 9 years ago) as well as a bunch of other conspiracies.

And I am thoroughly unsurprised to find out a holocaust denier and Confederate sympathizer is also an AGW denier. Let me take a guess at what you found that "shocked" you. Naturally-occurring climate change is a thing? Gore misrepresented ice core data in claiming that CO2 rises precede temperature rise when in reality the temperature rise starts first, which triggers a massive release of CO2 which feeds in on itself, and then you concluded because of his misrepresentation that means the whole field of climate science is bogus?

Or did you fall for one of the articles highlighting when Arctic or Antarctic ice levels trend upwards for a couple years? Or did you find out that the Mann study from the 80s ended up slightly overestimating the climate forcing of CO2? Or did you fall for one of those data massaging jobs that claims the earth has barely gotten warmer at all?

I've been up and down this road with all kinds of AGW clowns. If you fell for one it's not surprising you fell for the other, because both involve casually dismissing any compelling counter-evidence as fake. You are deluding yourself if you think your beliefs are a sign of "strength".

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

" Been there, done that. "

We're never done learning.

IBM is no big secret - at all. It's barely the tip.

You have me wrong. I'm not a denier. I'm a skeptic. I go where the evidence and reason point me. I don't sympathize with the Confederates. I understand the story - INCLUDING the underdog's view, which is OFTEN the more accurate version that doesn't require justification by lies.

No, your climate change guess is all for shit. I've know since gradeschool that since the Ice Age everything has been gradually warming, melting, and receding. I actually did research until I was far past any room for questions. BOTH the Left and the Right cherry pick and rig their data. It's not that difficult. The painful part was that my mind knew it to be true yet my heart took at least a year to fully catch up and "switch teams". I saw Al Gore speak at Fort Mason in 2005, his speech that became "An Inconvenient Truth", and it moved me to tears. He was finally human instead of the robot he was in his 2000 campaign. But I now realize it's a scam that has made and will make him billion$. No fucking carbon tax will fix anything - it will ONLY hurt the poor nations and poor citizens.

Calling people deniers and clowns doesn't win you anything. It just shows how biased, closed minded, and unwilling to understand you are. I didn't fall for anything. I got woke to the systemic and all pervasive Machiavellianism that dominates politics and envelops everything.

I still generally lean left, despite knowing some of the old-Left is full of bullshit and the newer SJW Corporate BLM Dem Left is complete bullshit - and of course much on the right and all of the NeoCons are bullshit.

" You are deluding yourself if you think your beliefs are a sign of "strength". "

Backatcha.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No, it sounds like I actually got pretty close. Finding out Gore was a liar was part of your reasoning, I just wrongly guessed which particular lie. But Gore's lies don't invalidate the field of climate science.

Calling people deniers and clowns doesn't win you anything. It just shows how biased, closed minded, and unwilling to understand you are

First off, if you believe that the Nazis didn't imprison and kill several million "undesirables" (mostly jews) during WW2, then "denier" is a perfectly accurate description. Similarly, if you think that climate science doesn't support the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, then calling you an AGW denier is also perfectly accurate. You could call me a flat earth denier because I reject the theory that the earth is essentially a plane. There's no prejudice there.

Clown is a pejorative, and it's one that I use to characterize all science deniers, because it goes even beyond the level of denial where you're denying history. I'll mock a bluecheck on Twitter claiming that there's no evidence that trans women have an advantage in sports in exactly the same way. If you're telling me that you believe there is no real evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and particularly if you're telling me that you came to this conclusion after "doing your research", you deserve to be mocked.

This shit isn't like abortion where you can make a good argument for both sides. There is a correct answer to the question of "Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?", and similiarly "Are CO2 levels increasing primarily because of the widespread burning of wood and use of fossil fuels?". The answer to both is "Yes.", and the science isn't ambiguous.

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

CO2 is a green house gas.

CO2 levels are increasing.

This is not in of itself evidence that CO2 and greenhouse gasses are the major drivers of climate change.

Your science denier rhetoric is just ad hominem. Just because an individual doesn't believe a hypothesis does not make them anti-science. Isn't it a tenet of science to be able to consider other hypotheses?

It does not appear to me that the influence of the sun is being fully taken into account:

CLIMATE FORCING | Our Future is Cold - Suspicious0bservers

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

^ Indeed. Thank you.

Fedi seems to be correct 1/4 of the time and annoying as hell 3/4. I might start to largely ignore him.

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

Just because an individual doesn't believe a hypothesis does not make them anti-science. Isn't it a tenet of science to be able to consider other hypotheses?

Yes, but if you reject a well-supported theory in favor of something which has no scientific merit for religious or political reasons, you are a science denier.

An obvious example would be religious people that reject the theory that the earth is billions of years old in favor of the theory that it's 10,000 years old, because that's what's implied in the bible. Or people that reject the theory that humanity is the result of a gradual process of evolution in favor of the theory that humans were created all at once and we're all descended from two people that existed less than 10,000 years ago and evolution is fake but also it isn't because you need evolution to explain different races and also different animal species because 2 of every species couldn't fit on a boat of any size that you could built out of wood and so on.

CO2 is a green house gas.

CO2 levels are increasing.

This is not in of itself evidence that CO2 and greenhouse gasses are the major drivers of climate change.

See this last quoted line is your first "I'm only pretending to understand how all of this works" fuckup. The composition of the atmosphere is what drives climate change. If you have even a basic understanding of what the greenhouse effect actually is, and accept that it is real, then the assertion that the composition of the atmosphere is what drives climate change is self-evidently true.

It does not appear to me that the influence of the sun is being fully taken into account

And this is your 2nd, and bigger, fuckup. Did you assert the the 11-year solar cycle wasn't being taken into account? You did not. Did you assert that the fewer observed sunspots that correlate with the Maunder Minimum imply that the sun's output fluctuates? You did not. Did you make any actual assertions about how the sun's output has changed over the period where we've observed rising temperatures that would even begin to explain why we're seeing rising temperatures? You did not.

Instead, you just made a hand-wavy statement AND LINKED TO A FUCKING HOUR LONG YOUTUBE VIDEO. I couldn't even tell you how many AGW "skeptics" have pulled basically the same shit. It's almost as obnoxious as when flat-earthers link me to that "200 proofs the earth is flat" video.

[–]fred_red_beans 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

OK, LOL!

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Can't defend yourself, so you just duck out. Typical.

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

You are a time suck and I won't waste it on you.

I also suspect you may be a shill as you are far too active, dogmatic, stuck in your views, and driven with whatever your agenda is. Most normal people are reasonable, will admit when they're wrong, and don't argue ad nauseam.

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

You act like an ass and you want me to spell out climate science for you in a post?

I gave you what I feel is a good reference. It is an hour long video. If you don't want to look at it, don't.

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

Of all the climate "skeptic" arguments, that the change we're experiencing has anything to do with the sun is perhaps the easiest and most straightforward to debunk. That's why I called you a tard. I'm not asking you to spell anything out, because you have no real knowledge to offer anyways.