Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
since the word "denier" is meant to suggest people who dont agree with you are akin to holocost denier, I want to know why you are a bigot?
It is common for children with below average intellectual ability to attribute objective disagreement with that of hostile intentions, spurring an emotional response.
We have all seen it, remember the days when you told your child "You can't go with your friends until you do that chore" and they responded with a tantrum of "You hate me, you just want to ruin my life!"
You all know very well that if you could ace the quiz, you would be jumping over one another to do so, and boast about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
since the word "denier" is meant to suggest people who dont agree with you are akin to holocost denier, I want to know why you are a bigot?
Ad hominem. You don't understand how this works, do you? Hint: whether or not climate change is a man-made phenomena has no relevance to whether or not I am a "bigot".
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Towner
Man made global warming is one of the biggest farces in the world today.
Let me get this straight: you encounter a quiz obviously designed to test your knowledge on the subject...and rather than take it and prove your credentials, you decide that simply stating your position without any evidence or elaboration would be more persuasive?
True Statements
- C02 occurs naturally and over decades the increased natural levels of C02 are much higher then man made C02.
- Over 10 years the rate at which the earth was warming has slowed down.
- The impact on solar flares and other sun related activity also effects climate change
- Science has studied weather patterns and samples showing increases and decreases of C02 back millions of years and often along the same levels without any man made influence (no cars etc)
- How, why, who and what is causing any warming, cooling and any other factors are still up for debate.
Interesting forum post of a quiz that any self educated, self righteous "climate change denier" should take.
I say this because most of you guys would horribly fail a high school honors physics test, and wouldn't even try to address any scientific question...unless if that question has political implications, in which case you suddenly, magically become experts on the matter. Suspicious?
I got all of them right except question 4, as I have never heard of that experiment.
I am not a climate change denier, but I am still skeptical to many of the environmentalists claims. Just because manmade climate change is true, does not mean catastrophic climate change is true. I have seen no evidence that an increase of temperature by 2-3 C will lead to catastrophic results. And even drastic measures will lead to little impact on earth temperature.
Well, that was a disingenuous reply if I've ever seen one. There's plenty of folks on this board who refuse to accept that the climate is changing right before their eyes. A few admit it's changing - but that's just natural they say. And a large perportion still think climate change is a fairy tale invented by lefties with their own agenda to push.
So, which group do YOU fall into?
who deny's climate change???
everyone knows (and its scientificly proven) that climate has changed many, many times
and yet NOT ONE scientist has proven MANMADE global warming
the globe evolves..the global enviroment changes..periodicly...there have been WARMER TIMES..there have been cooler times..there have been times when C02 was MUCH, MUCH higher
science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2
science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2
science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325 of today is is much lower than the 750-10000 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago
science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times
science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice
science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice
science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)
science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER...around 700-1500ppm compared to the current 320ppm
The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research (SCIENCE) demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. CO2 enriched plants grow rapidly and must also be supplied with the other five "essential elements" to ensure proper development and a plentiful harvest.
science shows As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels - below 225 ppm - will cease to grow or produce.
SCIENCE shows that plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration
common sense states that as the earths polulation expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.............yet the global warming liberals only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
why do liberals DENY science???...because with the science they cant get their TAX..so they manipulate the science
Ad hominem. You don't understand how this works, do you? Hint: whether or not climate change is a man-made phenomena has no relevance to whether or not I am a "bigot".
The Ad hominem was yours. YOU are the one name calling. YOUR name calling is a bigoted attack.
"Denier" has a very specific connotation. If you want to have a discussion then by all means lets have one.
But first drop the attacks and let’s have a discussion.
I fully agree that whether or not climate change is a man-made phenomenon has no relevance to your being a bigot.
Your using bigoted words however do have relevance. Why would I engage discussion with someone who has already demonstrated a bigoted attitude toward me?
The Ad hominem was yours. YOU are the one name calling. YOUR name calling is a bigoted attack.
"Denier" has a very specific connotation. If you want to have a discussion then by all means lets have one.
I labeled you a climate change denier, but that wasn't central to my argument; if anything, it was a part of my conclusion. There's a difference.
Quote:
Your using bigoted words however do have relevance.
No, they do not.
2+2 equals 4, you stupid cow. Oops, since I used "stupid cow", I guess my previous statement must be wrong, right?
Stop using the b-word as if this were some sort of politically correct ideological debate - we're referring to objective scientific data, not an ethical conundrum. This is a matter of fact, not opinion.
I labeled you a climate change denier, but that wasn't central to my argument; if anything, it was a part of my conclusion. There's a difference.
No, they do not.
2+2 equals 4, you stupid cow. Oops, since I used "stupid cow", I guess my previous statement must be wrong, right?
Stop using the b-word as if this were some sort of politically correct ideological debate - we're referring to objective scientific data, not an ethical conundrum. This is a matter of fact, not opinion.
[/font][/color]
As you claim the "high ground" of scientific superiority, could you tell us-
1. do you have any advanced degrees in any scientific fields?
2. have you ever published a scientific paper in the peer reivewed literature?
3. have you reviewed any papers for publication in the peer reviewed literature?
4. have you held any faculty positions in an area of science at a University?
5. have you presented your research at national scientific meetings?
6. have you recived any awards or honors for your research?
7. were you offered tenure?
You are an example of the Dunning-Krueger effect, in which those with the least knowledge, training, and level of expertise claim to be omnipotent and confident of fallacious assumptions.
I love it when these "arm chair scientists" with no scientific background at all try to lecture those who actually have academic credentials.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
