22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Rumor has it, climate change is an existential threat.

There is a grain of truth behind every rumor.

You have to destroy many mass delusions to identify the grain of truth.

This is only if we can't reduce ODSs and run out of sources of CO2. Hydrocarbons and ODSs really do need to be reduced. Basically, if the ozone layer becomes depleted enough, we won't be able to grow crops and phytoplankton (fish love the stuff, think food chain) will probably die off among other things. We do have time and how we use it is up to us.

p.s., @All, my primary concern would be what threat does industrialization pose to the ozone layer? About everything else we do, we can survive/adapt or adjust to. The ozone layer supports us having food to eat.

If Earth lost its protection from Sun's radiation, that would be existential threat.

Just a quick question here. Does Venus have an ozone layer?

tmiddles wrote:

One Punch Man wrote: [those] against the greenhouse gas theory and so probably won't respond well to this post because it assumes that CO2 and water vapour are having a real small warming...

Well there you have the difference between being skeptical and being a denier. For the mob out there (and the few trolls here) dedicated to "fighting" against the forces of conspiracy trying to dupe us all there is little hope of exploring anything because they aren't trying to figure anything out.

So what about this question: What is a sane/sound approach to skepticism?

I would say that the conspiracy formula (which is neither left wing, right wing or pro anything in particular, but simply a tool anyone can use to believe anything) is an easily identified and dismissed BS skepticism. Though it has never been more popular. That I would boil down to:
1- A position a person wants to believe
2- Belief in an enemy capable of hiding or manufacturing evidence to discredit that position.
3- Should evidence be missing or contradictory simply refer to step 2.

Your 22 points depart from this in that you are working from NASA data. To suggest that NASA simply falsified all the data would be the conspiracy theorists blank check to believe anything they want.

One Punch Man wrote:
Wow ^^ This IBdaMann guy is a total ass. Clearly he likes belittling people.

I won't bother replying to the forum troll. Save me time and energy.

IBdaMann wrote:

[quote]One Punch Man wrote:I have seen your replies on this board for a while,

One Punch Man wrote: ...and the viciousness of people like you is really striking.

One Punch Man wrote: You are [...] utterly convinced of your own rightness.

sealover wrote:In this interaction we have two members, both of whom are about equally anti scientific in their assertions about the nature of reality.

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

[quote]One Punch Man wrote:I have seen your replies on this board for a while,

I'm glad that you specified that you have merely "seen" my replies and didn't try to imply that you were somehow able to read them for comprehension.

One Punch Man wrote: ...and the viciousness of people like you is really striking.

Yes, I can easily understand how a total moron such as yourself would find correction via science and math as a "vicious attack."

You know nothing. You have nothing of any intellectual value to contribute. You believe that you are too good to learn from others. Your article is a testament to how you are only capable of regurgitating what other morons tell you to believe. You cannot think for yourself and are relegated to simply absorbing the mistaken opinions of others as though it were the gospel truth. If someone such as myself tries to help you with science, you consider it a vicious attack. It must totally suck to be you.

So there you are, wallowing in the misery of your life, overwhelmed by feelings of inadequacy, so you make your occasional appearance in Climate-Debate as a chronic troll trying to elicit signals that reaffirm your relevance in intellectual matters. Of course you can't simply respond intelligently to existing posts because that is beyond your abilities. Instead, you write an "article" that merely regurgitates what you believe are the correct opinions of other morons to whose level you aspire to reach, and then you come to this forum and say "Everybody look at me! Look what I did!" with the expectation that you be lauded for your brilliance. Of course, when your article is given a thorough scrubbing, it is more than you can handle. My unabridged review did not meet your expectations. It did not give you your delusion "fix" to help you overcome your feelings of inadequacy. Of course you found it to be "vicious." Of course you found it be "demoralizing." For you, it's not about learning (i.e. the purpose of this type of forum of ideas) but rather about having others stroke your ego, whether or not you deserve it.

You are a moron.

If you are too good to learn then the only other option is for you to be mocked. Get ready to bend over ... or else look to be coddled elsewhere.

I'm going to have fun with you. You don't know anything but you think you are some kind of guru. I'm looking forward to more of your "commentary."

One Punch Man wrote: You are [...] utterly convinced of your own rightness.

Being right does that to me, just as not knowing anything blinds you to people trying to help you.

[center]



One punch man tried to participate in this forum before.

In this interaction we have two members, both of whom are about equally anti scientific in their assertions about the nature of reality.

One of them has a sense of decency, where the other does not have any.

One of them relies on ugly personal attacks to prove they are correct about science.

You be da Mann... Does it make you feel smarter when you call someone else a "moron"?

Does it make you feel like less of a troll, after nine years and many thousands of mostly ugly posts, to call a member with 140 polite posts a "troll"?

I think most objective observers would agree that "vicious" describes the mentally ill and scientifically illiterate senior troll at this website.

One Punch Man wrote:Lucky I don't frequent this board much. This guy is a total ass.

sealover wrote:
...deleted bad quoting...you still have trouble handling the quoting system here.
One punch man tried to participate in this forum before.

sealover wrote:
In this interaction we have two members, both of whom are about equally anti scientific in their assertions about the nature of reality.

sealover wrote:
One of them has a sense of decency, where the other does not have any.

sealover wrote:
One of them relies on ugly personal attacks to prove they are correct about science.

sealover wrote:
You be da Mann... Does it make you feel smarter when you call someone else a "moron"?

sealover wrote:
Does it make you feel like less of a troll, after nine years and many thousands of mostly ugly posts, to call a member with 140 polite posts a "troll"?

sealover wrote:
I think most objective observers would agree that "vicious" describes the mentally ill and scientifically illiterate senior troll at this website.

IBdaMann wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:Lucky I don't frequent this board much. This guy is a total ass.

Lucky for us that you don't frequent this board much. You don't add any value. Conversing with you is like conversing with a bag of rocks.

You belong on a forum with other toxic morons, like YAP.

One Punch Man wrote: Another ass.

One Punch Man wrote: You are possibly the most stuck-up narcissistic prick I think I've ever had the pleasure of meeting on any public forum.

One Punch Man wrote: You literally post thousands of posts dripping with pure ego.

One Punch Man wrote: You. Are. A. Total. Prick.