Humm, well people have denied associated things. People have denied that the earth is warming People have denied that it is possible for humans to impact climate People have denied that a significantly warming climate could impair the human habitability of this planet People have denied that we can measure the temperature variations of the earth People have denied that we can measure increases in atmospheric co2 People have denied that co2 is a significant greenhouse gas People have denied that increases in atmospheric co2 come from human activities People have denied that we can do anything about our co2 emissions without causing economic catastrophe People have denied that we have any responsibility to future generations People have denied that those who are concerned about this topic have sincere concerns
Everyone has different beliefs, getting uptight about someone's opinion will just raise your blood pressure. If you believe in man made climate change, that's good for you. I believe it's a pile of testicles.
What has the earth had in the way of ice ages? I think it's about five. How many has man melted with his co2? I think that's zero. Alledgely the earth is some 4.54 billion years old and what has man collected, 150 years of weather data and some ice cores for co2 guessing, that's assuming co2 has a role to play.
If one means "denying that climates change", then no, I don't deny that. Climate is typically defined as weather over a long period of time, and weather changes all the time, so obviously climate does as well. If one means "denying that 'greenhouse gases' are causing the Earth to increase in temperature", then yes, I outright deny that religious belief as it causes the practitioner to reject logic, science, and mathematics.
Correct. Correct. I am one such denier. My position is that we can't accurately measure absolute global temperature. We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis. Yes, they have. Yes, they have. Yes, they have. Absolute temperatures of Earth cannot be measured. We don't have near enough thermometers to do so. We can do so at specific locations, but not for the Earth as a whole. CO2 is not uniformly distributed across the atmosphere. Mauna Loa has been known to cook their data, as recent volcanic eruptions should have caused spikes in their data. No such spikes are in their data. They use cooked data, not raw data. Yes, they have. I am one such denier. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor is capable of trapping heat nor heating the Earth's surface. See the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law. I haven't personally seen this one, but I wouldn't be surprised if so. Yup, and I am one of those people. This one is false. This isn't what people argue. Probably, but I am not one of those people. I think both sides of the debate have sincere concerns. I just think that one side of the debate is very misguided in their sincerity.
Here 'ya go: " vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor Wrong. 99% of all species since the beginning of life have gone extinct. We have no climate upheaval. We have no ecological crisis. The ocean is stable. It has been stable for the last 8,000 years. You're being lied to by people who want your money."
And i point out that there is a difference between calling it a pile of testicles and calling it a hoax
Cool let's play the what if game. What if Russia's about to launch? We better launch now just in case I guess.
If you call someone a pedophile yes we would expect evidence. The accused pedophile who says the charges are a hoax is innocent until proven guilty just as the accused warmers of the planet who say the charges are a hoax are innocent until proven guilty. You are attempting to turn that upside down by saying guilty until proven innocent.
People have denied the earth is flat. People have denied the sun orbits the earth People have denied we are being visited by extraterrestrials I'm sorry, did you have a point?
If YOU say something is true.... you have to have some evidence There are mountains of evidence about human caused climate change And lets assume that evidence is all wrong... That still does not make the theory a hoax I mean, you can be skeptical about the evidence for climate change And on that basis say the theory of human caused is wrong But if you want to claim the theory is a hoax, you need evidence You need evidence that the large number of people proposing this theory are all aware that the theory is wrong.., and still support it..., A hoax, after all, means that people are consciously, intentionally, maliciously deceptive Definition of hoax.to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous. Hoax | Define Hoax at Dictionary.com Hoax definition, something intended to deceive or defraud: T A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment, or rumors, urban legends, pseudosciences or April Fools' Day events that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes. I simply ask those who claim hoax to back up their claim....not with one or two dubious examples.... this needs to be pervasive hoaxing..... if true, it seems like that should be easy to prove Otoh, maybe the hoax claim is egregious alarmism
Once again you are charging modern man with a "crime" and we don't have to prove our innocence, you have to prove our guilt and until you do so you which you haven't it is a hoax as per your definition. A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. Definition of hoax.to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous.
Like i said at the start People alleging a hoax need to provide evidence I am not saying that they are guilty of anything Other than refusing to provide evidence for their hoax claim
You are saying we are guilty of warming the planet. We are saying that's a hoax. It's incumbent on the accuser to prove guilt not the accused to prove innocence. You are attempting to turn jurisprudence on its head by making a charge and demanding we prove it's not true somewhat like Mueller is claiming no evidence of obstruction but no evidence Trump didn't obstruct either. Guess this is the new tactic of the left and the ruling class in America.
I am saying we all are responsible I do mot single you out for any guilt And i am saying that is a claim without evidence Look, if someone is indicted and goes to court And says there is no evidence He is not accusing anyone He is defending himself against a baseless accusation In this case, you are accusing People of perpetuating a hoax. I am saying that you have not presented evidence And you continue to avoid doing the simple and honorable thing Which would be to present your evidence that climate change is a hoax Again, i accuse you of no guilt I simple observe that you have failed to provide evidence Further, YOU are the one who has baselessly alleged guilt of perpetuating a hoax.., i simply ask for the evidence
Joseph Lets move on to a useful discussion Do you agree that you claim that i am perpetrating a hoax And that THAT. means that i am knowingly promoting ideas that i know to be false?
Again you are making an accusation that modern man is responsible for climate change and then demanding we prove our innocence. Sorry but that's not the way it works. Just as Trump didn't have to prove the Russian conspiracy theory was a hoax we don't have to prove that the AGW theory is a hoax. Trump was vindicated by no evidence proving his guilt and the same holds true with the AGW hoax. You can't make accusations then say it's true until proven false.
A hoax is perpetrated by some and gullibly believed by others who perpetuate it. You are in one group or the other.
Look, donald trump spent years saying obama was not born in the usa Your allegation that climate change is a hoax is in FACT accusation
So once again i ask you to participate in a discussion Does climate change Is it changing now Is it possible for humans to be a factor in that change