The government benefits by manipulating information. The "green" corporations do too. That isn't an assumption I'm making.
The main driver behind global warming policy change is self benefit, the second driver is misinformation.
Quote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 06:43:53 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 06:38:01 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 06:35:39 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 06:33:22 PMI believe that global warming is an elaborate hoax scientists and the government use to expand their power. SpoilerOh great, a falsified graphCitation needed.Sorry, but that's not it works bud. I'd like to see something that validates that the information in the graph is good. I'd like a citation for that.
Quote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 06:38:01 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 06:35:39 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 06:33:22 PMI believe that global warming is an elaborate hoax scientists and the government use to expand their power. SpoilerOh great, a falsified graphCitation needed.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 06:35:39 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 06:33:22 PMI believe that global warming is an elaborate hoax scientists and the government use to expand their power. SpoilerOh great, a falsified graph
Quote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 06:33:22 PMI believe that global warming is an elaborate hoax scientists and the government use to expand their power. Spoiler
I believe that global warming is an elaborate hoax scientists and the government use to expand their power.
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 28, 2014, 06:47:21 PMAmerican involvement in the Middle-East is for the purpose of controlling oil and ensuring the protection of the petrodollarWe're hostile with Iran not because of nuclear program, but because of it's resistance to accept the petrodollarI have to say, I absolutely despise the petrodollar theory.
American involvement in the Middle-East is for the purpose of controlling oil and ensuring the protection of the petrodollarWe're hostile with Iran not because of nuclear program, but because of it's resistance to accept the petrodollar
Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 06:48:31 PMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 28, 2014, 06:47:21 PMAmerican involvement in the Middle-East is for the purpose of controlling oil and ensuring the protection of the petrodollarWe're hostile with Iran not because of nuclear program, but because of it's resistance to accept the petrodollarI have to say, I absolutely despise the petrodollar theory.Well the petrodollar is a real thing, or concept I should correctly say
Ok newshit.
Die Glocke is an alien anti-gravity drive.Oswald didn't kill KennedyNorth Korea is a technological marvel, the poor farmers you see at the border are just paid actors. Obama is part of a race of shape shifting lizard men
Quote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 06:58:24 PMOk newshit.Don't be a dick.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 06:59:36 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 06:58:24 PMOk newshit.Don't be a dick.Meh. I don't really care about "new" users who are just trolling.
Quote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 06:49:03 PMThe government benefits by manipulating information. The "green" corporations do too. That isn't an assumption I'm making. That isn't what I said. Are you stating that certain interests don't stand to benefit to preserve the status quote, that global warming isn't an issue? QuoteThe main driver behind global warming policy change is self benefit, the second driver is misinformation.I don't see how you can sit here and claim they're "simply wrong" without any supporting evidence or information for the idea that global warming is an elaborate hoax. Are there political motivations which cause fear-mongering and excessive claims? Absolutely. Is the environmentalist movement quite extreme at times? Certainly. However, there are solutions to global warming which require neither extensive governmental controls or corporate welfare. Indeed, the IPCC states that the best weapon against climate change is a strong market economy. Nonetheless, it seems altogether prudent to treat the issue as if it were real, given the trade-off of not doing so.
Quote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:02:53 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 06:59:36 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 06:58:24 PMOk newshit.Don't be a dick.Meh. I don't really care about "new" users who are just trolling.You doubt his sincerity?
Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 07:03:27 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:02:53 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 06:59:36 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 06:58:24 PMOk newshit.Don't be a dick.Meh. I don't really care about "new" users who are just trolling.You doubt his sincerity?Highly.
Quote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:04:36 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 07:03:27 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:02:53 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 06:59:36 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 06:58:24 PMOk newshit.Don't be a dick.Meh. I don't really care about "new" users who are just trolling.You doubt his sincerity?Highly.I'm not trolling but does it really matter if I was? 40% of Americans have the same opinion. I am by no means being radical. If anything, you are for saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx
Quote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 07:09:35 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:04:36 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 07:03:27 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:02:53 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 06:59:36 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 06:58:24 PMOk newshit.Don't be a dick.Meh. I don't really care about "new" users who are just trolling.You doubt his sincerity?Highly.I'm not trolling but does it really matter if I was? 40% of Americans have the same opinion. I am by no means being radical. If anything, you are for saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspxMy point is that if you want to discuss this, you cant just swiftly dismiss things because you don't like it. If you have a good reason to dismiss said chart, I'd love to see it.
Quote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:13:47 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 07:09:35 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:04:36 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 07:03:27 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:02:53 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 06:59:36 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 06:58:24 PMOk newshit.Don't be a dick.Meh. I don't really care about "new" users who are just trolling.You doubt his sincerity?Highly.I'm not trolling but does it really matter if I was? 40% of Americans have the same opinion. I am by no means being radical. If anything, you are for saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspxMy point is that if you want to discuss this, you cant just swiftly dismiss things because you don't like it. If you have a good reason to dismiss said chart, I'd love to see it.How are you asking me to prove a negative? How about you first prove that the graph is valid?
Quote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 07:14:40 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:13:47 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 07:09:35 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:04:36 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 07:03:27 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:02:53 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 06:59:36 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 06:58:24 PMOk newshit.Don't be a dick.Meh. I don't really care about "new" users who are just trolling.You doubt his sincerity?Highly.I'm not trolling but does it really matter if I was? 40% of Americans have the same opinion. I am by no means being radical. If anything, you are for saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspxMy point is that if you want to discuss this, you cant just swiftly dismiss things because you don't like it. If you have a good reason to dismiss said chart, I'd love to see it.How are you asking me to prove a negative? How about you first prove that the graph is valid?I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You seem to think that the chart is falsified, so I'd like to see the data that shows that the chart is incorrect.
Quote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:16:06 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 07:14:40 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:13:47 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 07:09:35 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:04:36 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 07:03:27 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 07:02:53 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 06:59:36 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 06:58:24 PMOk newshit.Don't be a dick.Meh. I don't really care about "new" users who are just trolling.You doubt his sincerity?Highly.I'm not trolling but does it really matter if I was? 40% of Americans have the same opinion. I am by no means being radical. If anything, you are for saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspxMy point is that if you want to discuss this, you cant just swiftly dismiss things because you don't like it. If you have a good reason to dismiss said chart, I'd love to see it.How are you asking me to prove a negative? How about you first prove that the graph is valid?I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You seem to think that the chart is falsified, so I'd like to see the data that shows that the chart is incorrect.So if I were to make a graph about the correlation between the consumption of chocolate in a given country and overall intelligence, it'd automatically be right until proven wrong? I think that's rather silly. Anyway, I already said why the graph isn't valid: it's manufactured by a government agency who benefits from people coming to the conclusion they want us to come to. As I already said, the government isn't a valid source of information.
Quote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 06:50:23 PMQuote from: Mad Max on September 28, 2014, 06:43:53 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 06:38:01 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on September 28, 2014, 06:35:39 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 06:33:22 PMI believe that global warming is an elaborate hoax scientists and the government use to expand their power. SpoilerOh great, a falsified graphCitation needed.Sorry, but that's not it works bud. I'd like to see something that validates that the information in the graph is good. I'd like a citation for that.How do we do that when you've quite clearly claimed that private institutions are "simply wrong" if they promulgate global warming?
Because there isn't any evidence for global warming.
Quote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 07:32:29 PMBecause there isn't any evidence for global warming.There is plenty of evidence, whether you choose to accept it as valid or not is the question. And as for this part'You cannot prove that their word is legit.'The exact same thing can be said of those who claim it is a myth, what is to say that those who wish to maintain the status quo aren't lying for their paychecks?Infact, it's not just paychecks but billions upon billions of dollars in the fossil fuel energy market. Which would and should be shut down hard if we'd actually like to see the human race make it to 2100 without living on a completely inhospitable planet.But no, that's just the Solar Panel New World Order at work.And if you wish to actually discuss this further then answer this question, without weaseling out of it either.You make the claim that the evidence given forth by an overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet is false, I ask - Where is your proof that it is false? Where is your evidence to the contrary?
Sandy Hook
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 28, 2014, 08:43:37 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 07:32:29 PMBecause there isn't any evidence for global warming.There is plenty of evidence, whether you choose to accept it as valid or not is the question. And as for this part'You cannot prove that their word is legit.'The exact same thing can be said of those who claim it is a myth, what is to say that those who wish to maintain the status quo aren't lying for their paychecks?Infact, it's not just paychecks but billions upon billions of dollars in the fossil fuel energy market. Which would and should be shut down hard if we'd actually like to see the human race make it to 2100 without living on a completely inhospitable planet.But no, that's just the Solar Panel New World Order at work.And if you wish to actually discuss this further then answer this question, without weaseling out of it either.You make the claim that the evidence given forth by an overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet is false, I ask - Where is your proof that it is false? Where is your evidence to the contrary?You cannot prove a negative, duh. However there is plenty of warranted skepticism against government studies, which is why I'm not going to take their word for it. Until they can show me their evidence clearly laid out, I'm not just going to swallow it—like a sheep.
Quote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 09:02:31 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on September 28, 2014, 08:43:37 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 07:32:29 PMBecause there isn't any evidence for global warming.There is plenty of evidence, whether you choose to accept it as valid or not is the question. And as for this part'You cannot prove that their word is legit.'The exact same thing can be said of those who claim it is a myth, what is to say that those who wish to maintain the status quo aren't lying for their paychecks?Infact, it's not just paychecks but billions upon billions of dollars in the fossil fuel energy market. Which would and should be shut down hard if we'd actually like to see the human race make it to 2100 without living on a completely inhospitable planet.But no, that's just the Solar Panel New World Order at work.And if you wish to actually discuss this further then answer this question, without weaseling out of it either.You make the claim that the evidence given forth by an overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet is false, I ask - Where is your proof that it is false? Where is your evidence to the contrary?You cannot prove a negative, duh. However there is plenty of warranted skepticism against government studies, which is why I'm not going to take their word for it. Until they can show me their evidence clearly laid out, I'm not just going to swallow it—like a sheep.>Weaselling.
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 28, 2014, 09:06:41 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 09:02:31 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on September 28, 2014, 08:43:37 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 07:32:29 PMBecause there isn't any evidence for global warming.There is plenty of evidence, whether you choose to accept it as valid or not is the question. And as for this part'You cannot prove that their word is legit.'The exact same thing can be said of those who claim it is a myth, what is to say that those who wish to maintain the status quo aren't lying for their paychecks?Infact, it's not just paychecks but billions upon billions of dollars in the fossil fuel energy market. Which would and should be shut down hard if we'd actually like to see the human race make it to 2100 without living on a completely inhospitable planet.But no, that's just the Solar Panel New World Order at work.And if you wish to actually discuss this further then answer this question, without weaseling out of it either.You make the claim that the evidence given forth by an overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet is false, I ask - Where is your proof that it is false? Where is your evidence to the contrary?You cannot prove a negative, duh. However there is plenty of warranted skepticism against government studies, which is why I'm not going to take their word for it. Until they can show me their evidence clearly laid out, I'm not just going to swallow it—like a sheep.>Weaselling.So if I were to ask you to disprove an invisible giant tea cup floating in space, and you told me it was my job to first prove it, then by your own logic you would be "weaselling," simply by taking the logical route.
Quote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 09:10:10 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on September 28, 2014, 09:06:41 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 09:02:31 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on September 28, 2014, 08:43:37 PMQuote from: Sky World on September 28, 2014, 07:32:29 PMBecause there isn't any evidence for global warming.There is plenty of evidence, whether you choose to accept it as valid or not is the question. And as for this part'You cannot prove that their word is legit.'The exact same thing can be said of those who claim it is a myth, what is to say that those who wish to maintain the status quo aren't lying for their paychecks?Infact, it's not just paychecks but billions upon billions of dollars in the fossil fuel energy market. Which would and should be shut down hard if we'd actually like to see the human race make it to 2100 without living on a completely inhospitable planet.But no, that's just the Solar Panel New World Order at work.And if you wish to actually discuss this further then answer this question, without weaseling out of it either.You make the claim that the evidence given forth by an overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet is false, I ask - Where is your proof that it is false? Where is your evidence to the contrary?You cannot prove a negative, duh. However there is plenty of warranted skepticism against government studies, which is why I'm not going to take their word for it. Until they can show me their evidence clearly laid out, I'm not just going to swallow it—like a sheep.>Weaselling.So if I were to ask you to disprove an invisible giant tea cup floating in space, and you told me it was my job to first prove it, then by your own logic you would be "weaselling," simply by taking the logical route.You are the one dismissing the claim with no basis for why you do so, other than 'you don't trust the gubermunt' You are the one making the negative claim here by claiming that the evidence is falsified or straight up propaganda.I ask for your proof of this claim, you weasel out of it and deflect towards the dawkins argument over the invisible teapot/teacup. So yeah, Weaselling.Either show your proof that their evidence is all bullshit, or your claim has no basis to stand upon. Mistrust without proof is not sufficient evidence with which to make a claim.So once more time - Show me your evidence that they are lying, any other argument is evading the point and is therefore - Weaselling.
The default is not that "evidence" is always true until proven wrong. I'll give you another hypothetical. If I were to say I have evidence that says reincarnation is real, is it automatically real until you disprove it, or do I first have to prove it?As the public, we don't have access to the ice core specimens the government is in possession of—the ice core specimens they claim to have gathered this data from. Unless we have access to that, and we do not, then you cannot expect me to take their word for it, and the same goes for the rest of the 40% of America.
Conspiracy Theories that you think might be, or are true.
