Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Though there are many more scientists who are extremely well qualified and have reached the same conclusions we have, we stress again that science is not a democratic exercise and our conclusions must be based on observational evidence.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I didn't have to read the article to know it's all lies since hovering over the link said it was from one of Rupert Murdoch's websites. Sorry, but I only get my unbiased news from credible outlets run by Arianna Huffington, Phil Griffin and the like.

Edit: Thanks Aestu for making me a winrar.

1. The proof that you are brainwashed, stupid and wrong is that the only publications that agree are those that exist to support the corps that have vested interests in polluting industries.

You're reading this out of the WSJ. Not any sort of scientific publication. Not any publication with no stake in the issue. There's probably a reason why you're reading it out of the WSJ and nowhere else.

2. The editorial itself is a fallacy of extreme verbiage. It uses a lot of cheesy analogies and syrupy writing that mean nothing to anyone who is either a scientist or generally informed.

The editorial cites "facts" that are either selective (surface temperatures of - which? - oceans) or so broad in scope as to be totally meaningless (global temperatures - everywhere? at once?). he editorial also cites a lot of totally meaningless and irrelevant facts (the number of words in a narrative) in what is a blatant application of the Chewbacca defense.

3. At the same time, the editorial disregards the glaring facts that are more relevant and contradict the entire argument - increase in sea levels, glacier retreat, communities in climate-sensitive areas such as Alaska, Switzerland, Indochina and Polynesia noticing massive and unprecedented change.

This here is the hard counter to the entire skeptic argument: like most corp-sympathizer arguments, it remains cogent only so long as the field of inquiry is narrowed to the facts that support the argument and ignoring those that completely debunk it.

4. The article itself makes two completely contradictory arguments: that global warming isn't real, and that it is real, but not caused by humans. Both arguments are provably false, but the fact that the editorial tries to make two mutually exclusive arguments at once rather than a single internally consistent argument proves that there is no motivation behind it other than to defend monied interests.

5. Jubbergun is stupid and brainwashed and goes into anaphylactic shock whenever he reads anything that doesn't agree with his ignorant and bigoted views. Therefore, any viewpoint he may have is inherently ignorant and automatically wrong.

Everything Jubbergun believes is wrong, not because the views themselves are wrong, but because they are based upon willful ignorance and therefore any resemblance they bear to truth is purely coincidental. The proof of this goes back to 1: he gets his scientific and social views from the WSJ.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Strawman.
Actually, I don't think anyone here except maybe Simone reads that stuff. At all. I certainly haven't, ever, in my entire life.

What the truth actually is, you refuse to read anything but Murdoch.

The proof that all so-called "neocons / libertarians" are completely wrong is that all their beliefs inevitably boil down to pure ignorance.

It is really that simple.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I stand by my response.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

If the lack of snow and cold this winter is any indication, Global Warming is totally real.

I consider myself quite informed when it comes to scientific issues. Compared to the other issues that come to mind, however, my knowledge in climate issues may be a bit less. However, iirc from my studies, I'm pretty sure it's not just CO2 that scientists are worried about and that the problems in different places (the ones Aestu mentioned) are indicative of a bigger problem down the road.

Could the IIPC been wrong about how much the planet is warming? Perhaps. But that doesn't mean the theory is falsified.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

I thought the term was climate change now.

Or is it global warming again?

It's probably a bit of both.

Clearly pollution is hurting the environment and contributing to global warming. Ripping holes in the ozone layer probably doesn't help the situation either.

However, average temperatures/climates in general on earth have ebbed and flowed in all of history. Certainly we could be in a natural rising period...but you can't discount pollutions impact on climate change simply because of that. Also, iirc many scientists have shown data that the temp is rising much faster than ever before.

Based on what do you make this assertion?

Switzerland

AUS/NZ/Polynesia

Greenland

Alaska

Indochina

Canada

Russia

But I don't know. Maybe half a dozen different cultures, with nothing in common, no common history, no shared interest, no shared institutions, political parties, governments, or anything else, are all part of one gigantic global conspiracy to prop up a myth.

Maybe they've contrived to act as if the myth of climate change is real, even in secret, to prop up this myth, so that someone would discover their secret internal communications then use them to support the myth, arguing that the fact they talk about the issue in secret proves that their views are completely independent and apolitical when in reality they're in on the scam.

Maybe these American far right-wing op-ed pieces that derive their support and constituency from those who stand accused of causing the problem are right, and every other culture, government, and institution on the planet is wrong.

Idk. Which seems more logical to you? I'm going with the "international conspiracy operating at all levels of all governments and social institutions everywhere in the world except American corps".

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Dude. Aestu. Chill.

You just want to argue with me. I agree with you that pollution is fucking up the environment and causing global warming.

I said though that perhaps the earth is also warming slightly as part of natural climate change patterns - that doesn't mean I don't think global warming exists or that pollution is by far the greatest factor in it.

Seriously, what the fuck man?

Stop reading the first goddamn sentence I write then going off the handle grabbing a bunch of links in an effort to prove me wrong. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Dude, Azelma... haven't you realized you're a willfully ignorant shill of a man with some bigot, racist, xenophobe, unintelligent, uneducated, "can't read books", red herrings and straw mans on the side? Plus, begging the question.

There's nothing driving your views except your intense need to split the difference. The claim is totally illogical because the rate of change is unprecedented.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

We'll try this again...

Support your claims. Provide direct, irrefutable evidence that man is causing global warming and that we have to do something before the world falls apart. Remember, this has to all factual and prove that the rate of change (based on whatever time frame, you haven't said) is unprecedented. Then you also need to prove unprecedented things haven't naturally happened in the past.