RE:RE:Is it just meWell said. Real scientists are not in it for the money. They have no agenda other than altruistically taking an interest in saving the earth. They provide the facts. How it is spun and used by corrupt politicians using tax dollars (wind turbines?) Is where the problems start. China's pollution is more than enough to do us all in even if the US, Canada etc cut thier carbon footprint to zero. Unless its a worldwide effort we are f'd. Kinda depressing for future generations and you can see why they may be pissed off. How someone can be pissed off at THEM for voicing thier displeasure just boggles my mind!
sclarda wrote: Tradertimestwo wrote
Or do all the climate change deniers sound like uneducated, ignorant fools. I would rather err on the side of caution than ignorantly kill the human race by not listening to the 'so called' scientists that follow the scientific method based on facts. Scientist who across the planet come up with the same conclusions. Year after hotter year. (Thats global average hotter, doesnt mean you wont get a cold xmas in chicago...) But hey. Ignorance is bliss.
---------------------------------------
No its not just you at all.
While i would not say that they are all uneducated, ignorant fools although a few of them on this board sure are. This is not the first time i have engaged in debating with these types of people and it always ends up the same way that is why i say it is not worth wasting a lot of time doing it especially with the dumbest ones like moe, vegas and pandora.
The problem as i have seen with these types is that they all seem to have the same tired old arguments and trot out stories from quacks and people like the Cato institute who have a very obvious agenda as they are supported by some very large oil barons in the Koch brothers who not only have an agenda they are pretty well cracked in the brain in my opinion.
Personally i have no dog in the fight about whether global warming exists as its not like i have some huge oil company to try and protect like the Kochs. If things happen as the scientists predict i will be long dead before the real nasty problems hit.
Why do they always question the agenda of the vast majority many volunteers who say there is a serious problem but they never question of those who deny the problem even when they have a huge obvious conflict of interest such as the kochs?
With all the controversy surrounding the subject a few years ago i started reading what the climate scientists had to say and then i read what the deniers had to say. And for the most part it didnt take long to see that the climate scientists who say there is a serious problem layed out things in a rational and calm way with what they were finding and what it likely means for the future.
And then to try and be fair and hear both sides of the argument i read quite a bit of what the deniers had to say and they were the ones for the most part trotted out quacks and people with an obvious agenda to support there side.
They never point to much research and what they think there findings mean as the climate scientists do it is just that they think that way and thats just the way it is end of story.
Most of them sound like some of the crackpot deniers that infest this board.