big john

You're really big on the hyperbole.

prairiepedaler

Sourcewatch? Never heard of it. If it is anything like the bias at Wikipedia on non-sanctioned topics or issues not in line with Wiki-clique philosophy then I am sure it is just as reliable (like Snopes).

Peer reviewed research? Not the wellspring of unvarnished truth you may think it is.

Duped? Not likely. I am well aware of the genesis and perpetrators of the environmental movement, something thought up long ago by people you've never heard of. There is a good reason for doing things, then the real reason. You are talking to a guy who has not had a car for 20 years, rides a bike in the frozen hell of Winnipeg and grows most of his own produce, by choice. I love Nature, I just don't buy the climate religion. It makes no sense and I know of the real reason for it.

The founder of Greenpeace had this to say about the environmental movement. He is not alone in his assessments.

You can enjoy your cricket burger if you want, but not me.

shelbyfv

Aha, we may have uncovered a 20 year conspiracy! Greta born, you lose your license, can't be a coincidence, right?

genejockey 

More like 127 year old conspiracy, all started by some Swedish guy.

genejockey 

I'll ask you the same questions I asked Wolfchild then:
What part of it don't you believe?

• The known absorption of electromagnetic radiation in the infrared range by Carbon Dioxide?
• The calculated amount of Carbon Dioxide released annually due to the burning known quantities of fossil fuels?
• The measured increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide?
• The measured increase in global average temperature?

What part do you dispute, and where are your data?

cyccommute 

Yes, sometimes mistakes are made but the only way that mistakes are found and corrected is through the the peer review system. Mistakes are always made in measurements, interpretations, hypotheses, and even just bone-headed stubbornness. Sometimes those mistakes persist, but the only…the only…way that those mistakes are corrected is by people trying to replicate the previous results and publishing their results. Piltdown man? A hoax perpetrated for some reason but it was solved by scientists who thought there was something fishy about it. Cold Fusion? A mistake in measurement and, perhaps, a bit too much hopeful thinking but the only way it was found to be wrong was by other scientist doing testing. There simply isn’t any other way to correct the mistakes. Science and peer review are certainly not “self-destructive”.

So I’m sure that you have vast amounts of data to back up your claims. By all means, please tell us the “real reason”.

He’s not a “founder of Greenpeace” according to Greenpeace

And he’s spent 3 decades pedaling anti-environment propaganda for extractive industries. In other words, he’s not all that trustworthy.

No one is coming after your hamburger. The wonderful thing about us humans is that we can make a meal from just about anything. I’ve had cricket tacos. They aren’t too bad. I’ve had uni (look it up) and really liked it. I enjoy shrimp, crab, and craydads. I eat, and enjoy honey, which is bee puke that is passed from bee to bee to reduce the water content. All of these are part of the phylum Arthropoda of which crickets are just one member. But no one has ever forced me to eat any of these nor, for that matter, have they forced me to eat hamburgers…which I also enjoy.

And I applaud genejockey for saying much the same thing but much more succinctly.

Maelochs

I repeat this again because if people cannot respond ... they have tacitly admitted they have no factual basis for their positions. Let's see what you can come up with, folks.

A fair proportion of the people on the planet eat insects willingly and knowingly .... most Americans eat much smaller quantities willingly yet unknowingly.

I like it when people have nothing but hype to fight with. They jump from one un-investigated and easily disproven myth to another, deny anything which clearly disproves their preconceived notions .... well, if it is on Wikipedia and I disagree it must be a lie, right? Even when there are citations to numerous other sources which of course are all lies to because they contradict the great and unspeakable Truth which somehow no one can ever state .... but which seems to be "Whatever I say must be right despite any evidence to the contrary."

(How do you know the Sun isn't a fiction? Wikipedia has an entry for it.)

These people use the shotgun-assault argument: crickets, global warming, Greenpeace, whatever .... if I cannot refute a factual statement, I can attack in six other directions and if those six claims are proven equally ridiculous and unfounded, I can find six more .... not sure what the relationship is between crickets and carbon-fiber bike frames and Greenpeace and Global Warming .... except they are things that a certain segment of the population likes to ridicule out of hand.

There is ample evidence that Friends of Science is a bogus group .... have you contacted the University of Calgary, or are they another Wikipedia fiction? Is the group's own website which states "Friends of Science does not conduct any original scientific research" also fiction? So ... you did no research, but leapt to defend the group because they reinforce your biases? Have you no interest in Fact? Show us Your research about who the group actually represents, who funds it, and how "balanced" there publications are, please.

Yeah ... it is funny that people dump on peer-reviewed science but do Zero research of their own. "Your facts are bogus even if numerous scientists independently arrived at the same experimental data, but My stuff is real because I posted it on TikTok." Do you have a better definition of irony?

It is funny .... people believe conspiracy theories which reinforce their biases, but assume that "false-flag" and "Cointelpro" operations cannot be done by any groups they support .... patently ridiculous.

Let's see the data, folks. Link to the sites showing actual research which proves that the human race is not influencing global warming (climate change.) Do it ... or realize how utterly empty your positions are.

Trakhak

elcruxio

Two points.

Firstly
The people who accuse scientists of being corrupted or pushing an agenda or some other negative thing that requires a common shared interest between majority of most scientists of that field, probably do not know that many scientists. Or have really met any.
As generalizations go, you can't bribe the majority of scientists in a given field to give you results you want. Getting scientists to cooperate like that is like trying to herd cats. There's a strong element of wanting to be correct and also perhaps a stronger element of wanting to prove someone else wrong. I know there's the mantra that science only shows what you're wrong about, but deep down, they want to be right.

Secondly
I do emphatize with the deniers to an extent. It's not easy having a strong opinion about something and then getting proven wrong. If you accept it, that means you'll also need to accept that you're not as smart as you thought you were and that you might be kinda stupid. That kinda thing gnaws at the ego. You could almost say it hurts.
So it's understandable that so many people choose the other way of holding the line and not accepting being average. Because that then might have pretty large existential implications. Not everyone is willing to accept that you're just another worker ant within the mass and not in fact the superstar of your life and your surroundings.

When more research papers about covid started coming out I decided to read some of them. The one I chose at that time was about the immune evasion of some of the variants or something like that. If you know the meme "I understood some of those words", that was me trying to read said research paper. For me that was the moment I realized I might be kinda dumb. Or at least not at all versed in virology or medicine. But mainly just dumb.

More people should embrace being stupid. Life's easier when you don't have to worry about that many things you might not completely understand. And the rest should stop ridiculing people when they catch someone being wrong.

Herzlos

Not necessarily dumb, but lacking in the multi-year education and multi-year work experience required to fully understand the subject matter. You can't learn everything about everything, which is why we have experts and generally trust them unless like scientists they produce a result we don't like.

For example, I write software at work, I'm pretty good at it but I've been doing it for 20 years and have a 4 year degree on top of 4 years specialization in high school. I have enough of an understanding of mechanics to follow what my mechanic says but I still trust them when they tell me my car needs X or Y and I'd never dream of doing it myself. In the same vane I don't do my own medical treatment, dentistry, plumbing, electrical work, legal documents, or build my own tech from scratch.

Given enough time I'm sure I could learn how to do one of those things well enough, but what'd the point be?


I think the only true idiots are the ones who believe that after an hour on YouTube, they know more than a subject matter expert with 30 years experience in the field and peer reviewed papers.

PeteHski

Yep, you got duped again. Maybe Greenpeace do go overboard on their marketing campaign and stunts, but that's how you reach the masses these days - particularly when you are up against governments and corporates who are heavily invested in fossil fuels and short-term economic development.

PeteHski

My dog takes that approach and is very happy with life. But he also doesn't talk s*** about stuff he doesn't understand - thus avoiding ridicule.

PeteHski

Wolfchild never disappoints with his blinkered viewpoint stated as fact.

PeteHski

I would also doubt that many scientists really wished to conclude that the world climate was in danger of running out of control. It's not the result anyone would have chosen given a free choice. Imagine if scientists had all concluded that man-made climate change was insignificant? A massive sigh of relief for both governments and the fossil fuel industry.

prairiepedaler

Cyco, I have observed in the forums not to argue with you because it will never end. Except, only with you being right.

prairiepedaler

I knew I was in the presence of BF greatness when I had a look at the banned and suspended list.

shelbyfv

Thanks! When it comes to whacking trolls I do have a history of being too persistent for my own good! But don't let your awe stop you from responding to the other guys who have pointed out the ways you are wrong.

Koyote

It's not accepting that you're stupid...Rather, it's being realistic about your abilities. But there are people who, when confronted with things beyond their understanding, will grasp whatever (overly) simplistic explanation is foisted upon them...That's stupid. This is why genejockey 's questions are going unanswered: they don't even understand the questions, much less have solid answers for them. It's much easier to claim that it's all a conspiracy than it is to learn a bit of the science.

​​​​​​In a thread like this, it's pretty easy (I think) to spot the posters who have advanced degrees (MS and/or PhD) in the sciences or who otherwise have been exposed to the scientific method and the process. Those are research degrees (esp the PhD), and they provide a common approach to questions like this, as well as an understanding of how research is funded, conducted, and published. A person with such professional training has a certain amount of information literacy which would prevent him/her from being duped by, say, industry-funded 'research' groups which don't actually do research and which are actually staffed by PR people rather than scientists working in that field.

And yeah, anyone who claims that 'all' of the scientists have been coerced, or bribed, or otherwise corrupted is basically saying, "I have zero understanding of the process, much less of the actual science." That would be a conspiracy that would make a fake moon landing look easy. (Oh, and none of those people has ever explained why all of these scientists would be lying, other than claiming that the government wants to control us, or ban fossil fuels, or some such thing -- which begs the question "why would the government [any government, any politician] want to do that?")

livedarklions

Wow, you're citing an organization founded by petroleum geologists and funded with oil industry money to show a lack of consensus? Friggin' hilarious.

Koyote

It reminds me of the decades-long campaign in which the tobacco industry funded 'research' which all concluded that, gosh and by golly, tobacco doesn't actually cause cancer! Some people fell for that, too.

cyccommute 

Typical Gish Gallop. Throw out a thousand untruths of which only a few can be answered.

cyccommute 

Afraid to defend your position, huh?

indyfabz

That speaks volumes about your positions.

indyfabz

More like unable.

livedarklions

Seriously? How many right-wing political organization links do you think you should get away with on this thread?

Honestly, I have no idea why the mods are letting you do this.