The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

[_Doctor Steuss]

'Tis a lesson you should heed:
Try, try, try again.
If at first you don't succeed,
Try, try, try again.

[_Gunnar]

Unbelievable! You're trying to convince us climate scientists are dishonest by showing us videos by the already thoroughly discredited Tony Heller?!

[_canpakes]

faqs, you never explained how burning 95 million barrels of oil + 100 million tons of coal a day changes nothing within the atmosphere.

Why are you so afraid to answer that question, faqs? ; )

[_Gunnar]

faqs, you never explained how burning 95 million barrels of oil + 100 million tons of coal a day changes nothing within the atmosphere.

Why are you so afraid to answer that question, faqs? ; )

Nor has he any reasonable answers to these questions:

Hey, I have a question for faqs (mikwut, please also feel free to give your opinion) ...

Clearly, the Administration is not friendly to the topic of climate change, to the point that they will do their best to underfund/defund research, toss scientist advocates to the curb and suppress reports or opinion regarding the otherwise prevailing view amongst the scientific community.

So, what is the supposed advantage of any researcher or scientist in holding the idea that anthropogenic climate effects exist? Surely it isn’t because there’s any guarantee of work or fame for holding that opinion.

If the scientific community was so motivated by a conspiratorial drive to merely ‘make money’, as denialists claim, why wouldn’t they be streaming out of the doors of the institutions that they work for to instead seek better, more reliable work and pay with the fossil fuels industry or that industry’s advocates in Washington?

and:

Why indeed would the vast majority of atmospheric scientists and climatologists continue warning us about anthropogenic warming if it were not a real thing, and shilling for the fossil fuel industry would likely be much more remunerative and less likely to incur intense political opposition and even death threats?

[_Res Ipsa]

Look, FAQs, I'm going to give it to you straight up. From time to time, you or one of the other deniers on the board cut and paste a graph or a factoid or a youtube that you claim disproves global warming. And every time I've investigated them, they've turned out to be false or misleading. It takes all of 30 seconds to cut and paste a graph. It takes as much as an hour to investigate the graph and write an explanation that shows why it is false or misleading. And when I take the time to do so, you guys just run away. Then, you reappear days or weeks or months later, often posting stuff that I've debunked in the past or the latest new killer "proof" from some guy on youtube with a dismal track record of honesty.

So, if you want me to invest the time and effort necessary to put together and present the evidence that Heller's fraud claim is, itself, fraudulent, then i want a promise from you that you'll stick around to actually read and discuss the evidence. Otherwise, it's just not worth my time.

[_EAllusion]

What are the odds that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat, evolutionary theory is broadly correct, and there is little evidence that women in aggregate are inherently inferior at math? Riddle me that poindexter. Can't all be the case.

Huh? What the hell are you on about now?

Just making fun of Sam Harris's argument.

[_Some Schmo]

Proof of fossil fuel industry's unethical nature:

Climate change.

[_canpakes]

And when I take the time to do so, you guys just run away.

That’s because faqs knows that he is being willfully dishonest.

This isn’t about the scientific ‘truth’ of anything for him. It’s about preserving his political viewpoint in the face of being wrong.

[_DarkHelmet]

Oh goody. faqs is back with more tony Heller crap after running away from the last thread. Res Ipsa, thank you for taking the time to investigate and debunk this garbage. While it has no effect on faqs - he is a good little soldier for people like Heller - it does help others who may be lurking.

[_DarkHelmet]

What are the odds that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat, evolutionary theory is broadly correct, and there is little evidence that women in aggregate are inherently inferior at math? Riddle me that poindexter. Can't all be the case.

That is a bit of a strawman, isn't it? Harris's point is that knee-jerk conformity to your chosen party on every issue is silly. How is that controversial?