Earth is safe from 'global warming'

[KAZSoliloquy]

I'm not sure about how to continue this conversation, because you're starting to just gibber incoherent nonsense.

Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't make it incoherent nonsense.

That's absurd. Humans are causing lots of things right now. Therefore humans have the power to stop them.

You're assuming that because humans do one thing, as a whole, we have the power to stop. Then how come we haven't? There are tons of things humans do that we can't stop. It's in our nature. That fact alone is enough evidence for me to suggest that we're supposed to do this.

Whatever happens is supposed to have happened, because if it wasn't, it wouldn't have happened?

Exactly. Why is that hard to understand?

 

[afrdzak]

Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't make it incoherent nonsense.



You're assuming that because humans do one thing, as a whole, we have the power to stop. Then how come we haven't? There are tons of things humans do that we can't stop. It's in our nature. That fact alone is enough evidence for me to suggest that we're supposed to do this.

Power, greed, conflicting interests, apathy, etc....

Exactly. Why is that hard to understand?

Because some people believe in volition/cognitive ability/problem solving as opposed to destiny/fate.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Because some people believe in volition/cognitive ability/problem solving as opposed to destiny/fate.

I believe in those as well but when it comes to a situation like this where you and I have very little control, who's to say that anyone has control?

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

There are tons of things humans do that we can't stop. It's in our nature. That fact alone is enough evidence for me to suggest that we're supposed to do this.

Most people would preface a statement like that with...a fact of some sort.
Congratulations on having the courage to be different.
:icon_lol:

Whatever happens is supposed to have happened, because if it wasn't, it wouldn't have happened?

Exactly. Why is that hard to understand?

I have no faith that this will sink in, but this is the most help I have time to give you.
Good luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

 

[MeatheadMike]

Big oil and government are connected at the hip.

Ok, but the whole climate change debate is occurring because climate change scientists are proposing the government do the exact opposite of what Big Oil wants.... reduce fossil fuel emissions.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Most people would preface a statement like that with...a fact of some sort.

You can't read?

"There are tons of things that humans do that we can't stop."

Nah, bruh. Not a fact. Don't be a dickhead and actually put some effort into comprehending something. If your brain doesn't work, it doesn't work, but at least try.

I have no faith that this will sink in, but this is the most help I have time to give you.
Good luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Once again, comprehension problems. I know what circular reasoning is. That was not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be: Elvis died, therefore, Elvis is not alive. That's circular reasoning.

Humans would not be on Earth if the Earth didn't need humans on it. That's what evolution is. New species arrive to eat other species because there are too many of them, etc. Logically, I would then assume that anything humans do was intended by Earth (our creator) because if not, then we would not have been created that way. Of course, this theory is just a theory, but so is literally everything else because no one fucking knows.

If you can't understand that, then that's okay. Just turn on Fox News with a cup of coffee and continue on with your day.

 

[speakhandsforme]

 

[IDL]

Ok, but the whole climate change debate is occurring because climate change scientists are proposing the government do the exact opposite of what Big Oil wants.... reduce fossil fuel emissions.

That assumes the owners of Big Oil are in conflict with the agenda of grabbing power. I don't think that is a given.

I'm pretty sure no matter what happens, the owners of Big Oil will find a way to come out on top.

 

[afrdzak]

That assumes the owners of Big Oil are in conflict with the agenda of grabbing power. I don't think that is a given.

I'm pretty sure no matter what happens, the owners of Big Oil will find a way to come out on top.

Give it a rest, man.

1. Big Oil and Gov't are in bed (of which I agree to a degree).
2. Climate scientists are funded by the gov't. So their research is skewed towards gov't wishes....which by design are identical to Big Oil's wishes?
3. Climate scientists recommend policies going against Big Oil's bottom lines/wishes.
4. ?
5. Profit

 

[IDL]

Give it a rest, man.

1. Big Oil and Gov't are in bed (of which I agree to a degree).
2. Climate scientists are funded by the gov't. So their research is skewed towards gov't wishes....which by design are identical to Big Oil's wishes?
3. Climate scientists recommend policies going against Big Oil's bottom lines/wishes.
4. ?
5. Profit

At the top it's all about power. Money is a means to an end.

 

[afrdzak]

At the top it's all about power. Money is a means to an end.

In the words of TCK:

*shrugs

 

[UpaLoompa]

If god (if they believed there was a god) himself said there was no such thing as man made global warming, it still wouldn't be enough to change the minds of the global warming blowhards.

I'm 33 years old, when I was in middle school I remember some of my teachers consistently preaching about the hole in the ozone layer, that it was growing bigger and bigger with every passing year. The super extreme environmentalists crowd went as far as claiming if we didn't make immediate changes the world was going to be doomed in a matter of decades. Now you never if ever hear anything about it once their argument fell apart.

With your history of awful posts I shouldn't be surprised but... look a bit more into this. The reason we don't hear much about the ozone layer is because very strong legislation was enacted internationally. The argument never fell apart, action was simply taken. This legislation and action was, shockingly, opposed by people who claimed the data was "unreliable" and "inconsistent" and that there was still "uncertainty" about the causes. The exact same people are telling you the exact same thing about global climate change.

 

[UpaLoompa]

At the top it's all about power. Money is a means to an end.

Your dogma is not internally consistent.
Ever consider that the lack of logical consistency--ignoring the fact that there's a lack of evidence--was suggestive of a problem with your dogma?

 

[IDL]

In the words of TCK:

*shrugs

I'm saying it isn't so much about Big Oil, it's about who owns big oil, what their relationships are and what they ultimately want.

I have no doubt that whatever happens these people will do just fine.

 

[IDL]

Your dogma is not internally consistent.
Ever consider that the lack of logical consistency--ignoring the fact that there's a lack of evidence--was suggestive of a problem with your dogma?

I don't see big oil companies as independent entities. I see them as part of a larger network.

 

[FIMN]

I don't see big oil companies as independent entities. I see them as part of a larger network.

Zzzzz troll.

 

[afrdzak]

I'm saying it isn't so much about Big Oil, it's about who owns big oil, what their relationships are and what they ultimately want.

I have no doubt that whatever happens they will do just fine.

I get what you're saying. It's your usual CT bit without any evidence/sourcing/reasoning/etc. Only vague, tangential information mixed with a phrase you heard somewhere that you thought sounded cool.

Over time, your posting has gotten more and more CT'ish. I don't know exactly when this started happening, what book you read, what group of people you fell in with that got it all started, but now it's full tilt. And honestly, it's annoying to have you spew this garbage with every, single post in every thread you post in. Literally, all of them. I don't think you're a bad guy, but man it's tiring reading all of your CT tinged posts.

This time, your train of thought isn't even logical.

Hence, "give it a rest, man".

At least 7wtc911 seems to only keeps his CT hat on for 9/11 threads. You, however, find a way to interject your CTs on every topic in this forum. Follow his lead. Start small. Get really educated on a particular topic and get your CT on! Branch out from there. The world is your oyster, but you gotta learn to crawl before you learn to walk.

 

[Jukai]

I get what you're saying. It's your usual CT bit without any evidence/sourcing/reasoning/etc. Only vague, tangential information mixed with a phrase you heard somewhere that you thought sounded cool.

Over time, your posting has gotten more and more CT'ish. I don't know exactly when this started happening, what book you read, what group of people you fell in with that got it all started, but now it's full tilt. And honestly, it's annoying to have you spew this garbage with every, single post in every thread you post in. Literally, all of them. I don't think you're a bad guy, but man it's tiring reading all of your CT tinged posts.

This time, your train of thought isn't even logical.

Hence, "give it a rest, man".

At least 7wtc911 seemed to only keeps his CT hat on for 9/11 threads. You, however, find a way to interject your CTs on every topic in this forum. Follow his lead. Start small. Get really educated on a particular topic and get your CT on! Branch out from there. The world is your oyster, but you gotta learn to crawl before you learn to walk.

Fixed.

 

[IDL]

I get what you're saying. It's your usual CT bit without any evidence/sourcing/reasoning/etc. Only vague, tangential information mixed with a phrase you heard somewhere that you thought sounded cool.

Over time, your posting has gotten more and more CT'ish. I don't know exactly when this started happening, what book you read, what group of people you fell in with that got it all started, but now it's full tilt. And honestly, it's annoying to have you spew this garbage with every, single post in every thread you post in. Literally, all of them. I don't think you're a bad guy, but man it's tiring reading all of your CT tinged posts.

This time, your train of thought isn't even logical.

Hence, "give it a rest, man".

At least 7wtc911 seems to only keeps his CT hat on for 9/11 threads. You, however, find a way to interject your CTs on every topic in this forum. Follow his lead. Start small. Get really educated on a particular topic and get your CT on! Branch out from there. The world is your oyster, but you gotta learn to crawl before you learn to walk.

I'm clarifying my stance, that's all. If you think these big oil companies are independent and not political at all then so be it.

It changes how you look at a problem if you think they are or aren't independent in nature.

I have concluded for myself that at the very top there is a fair amount of interconnectedness. It's more effective that way.

 

[afrdzak]

I'm clarifying my stance, that's all. If you think these big oil companies are independent and not political at all then so be it.

It changes how you look at a problem if you think they are or aren't independent in nature.

I have concluded for myself that at the very top there is a fair amount of interconnectedness. It's more effective that way.

I'm not disagreeing with you fully on this. Not at all. I don't think many people will argue against the idea that corporations are sleeping with politicians...and always have been. Always will.

But surely, in this instance, you can see how your insistence that all things are CTs doesn't really follow a logical train of thought.

We are discussing climatologists and their research showing the negative impact of the burning of fossil fuels.

You state that Big Oil is in bed with the gov't (again, of which I agree to a degree). The same gov't funding said climatologists research. Said research portrays current energy policies in a bad light. Said research is anti-Big Oil since Big Oil is not in the business of scaling back the burning of fossil fuels. It is actually detrimental to them.

The logical conclusion here (since there has been zero effort to provide information to the contrary) is that in this particular instance, Big Oil in NOT in bed with the gov't...or at least the subset of gov't funding/interpreting this research. They can have some politicians in their pockets. That doesn't mean they have them all. Politicians may acquiesce on some of their demands, but not all.

You, however, have someone been able to interpret this as: Big Oil still wins. I don't know how. I can't explain it. But I know it must be true.

Hence the famous TCK:

*shrugs