General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
The other thread succumbed to off-topic political discussion - should participants wish this thread to remain open, please refrain from engaging in political discussion.
 
The other thread succumbed to off-topic political discussion - should participants wish this thread to remain open, please refrain from engaging in political discussion.
Aside from the occasional post about recycling (or dying), that's really all this thread is about, at it's core. It would be nice to see some consistency.
 
That looks suspiciously like denial type behaviour. Did you bother to actually watch it or just read the video title and jump the shark? Observation seems to show the crisis team being unable to tolerate wrong think.

Ok, let's play! I'll see your unqualified debunk claim and raise you this one, assuming you won't watch it...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY
Oh nice, more YT videos, they'll sure trump decades of research by thousands of scientists. About the debunking:


TL:DR There was never a year in which concensus on global cooling was achieved.
 
Oh nice, more YT videos, they'll sure trump decades of research by thousands of scientists. About the debunking:


TL:DR There was never a year in which concensus on global cooling was achieved.
Wouldn't it be amusing if 'skepticalscience' turned out to be a load of scare tactic funded rubbish as well.

Did you actually watch the video? It looks at the 97% consensus claimed by skepticalscience John Cook.
 
Wouldn't it be amusing if 'skepticalscience' turned out to be a load of scare tactic funded rubbish as well.
You said it yourself pal.

Did you actually watch the video? It looks at the 97% consensus claimed by skepticalscience John Cook.
The only real objection I've heard is that the 97% doesn't take into account neutral papers, the issue is that they aren't papers dealing with climate change in the first place, i.e., they are completely irrelevant for the concensus of climate change because they weren't adressing it in the first place.
 
You said it yourself pal.



The only real objection I've heard is that the 97% doesn't take into account neutral papers, the issue is that they aren't papers dealing with climate change in the first place, i.e., they are completely irrelevant for the concensus of climate change because they weren't adressing it in the first place.
Eyeroll... You didn't watch the video then. If you did, you'd know it listed what J. Cook did with the papers.

Remember, when pointing your finger at others, three more fingers are pointing back at you, the "denier".
 
Last edited:
Eyeroll... You didn't watch the video then. If you did, you'd know it listed what J. Cook did with the papers.

Remember, when pointing your finger at others, three more fingers are pointing back at you, the "denier".
If public and scientific poles have shown anything is that climate change deniers are a minority so no "three fingers" to point at me.
 
It's a simple example to demonstrate the propensity of those who point the finger of blame being totally oblivious of their own contribution to the problem. You seem very quick to declare any and all information that appears to disagree with your beliefs "debunked" without bothering to look at that information yourself.

I read and watch all the hyper-emotive opinion stuff the crisis team post, for objectivity. But you're scared?
There's no point in reviewing information that I already know is not true, it's a waste of time.
 
No, I simply avoid wasting my time reading things that are blatantly wrong.
I could say the same about the rubbish the crisis team post, without reference, or I could look at the points they are making and create a more informed view on both sides of the debate. Unlike the self confessed "denier" thinking they already know everything there is to know because the religious cult buddies said so.

I don't like wasting time either, but if I'm going to argue a point raised in a link, it's best to click the link first.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom