Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming

[Deleted member 848]

Krockodile bro. Krockodile. Legalize any drug it should be Krock. Try it my friend. Life changing. Like the LSD LIFE CHANGING.

Krokodil*

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

Krokodil*

You bumped the Krock my friend? It is insane yeah? Give to ur girl Borris guarantee you can do whatever u like.

 

[babe]

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

Yeah, I looked at it and I read it. Instead of taking a bloggers word for it I went to the source and tried to gain some level of understanding of what I was actually looking at. My understanding may be rudimentary but it's better than being completely clueless because I took some random wordpress page as gospel.

Actually, I favor these efforts to compensate for known inaccuracies in the data, but at the same time it shows the problems we face in invoking this data as the basis for major decisions and long-range plans. I still don't see data that justifies the regulations and social policies some want to emplace.

Ten or twenty year spikes in temp have been demonstrated in analyzing sediment cores and ice cores as a prelude to each known "ice age". Before we take drastic actions, we need to figure out what causes ice ages, which do not correlate to sudden changes in ambient atmospheric CO2.

 

[NUMBERICA]

2 degrees is going to disrupt billions of lives?

Are you serious?

Of course you're not.

 

[DutchJazzer]

 

[♪alt13]

Actually, I favor these efforts to compensate for known inaccuracies in the data, but at the same time it shows the problems we face in invoking this data as the basis for major decisions and long-range plans. I still don't see data that justifies the regulations and social policies some want to emplace.

Ten or twenty year spikes in temp have been demonstrated in analyzing sediment cores and ice cores as a prelude to each known "ice age". Before we take drastic actions, we need to figure out what causes ice ages, which do not correlate to sudden changes in ambient atmospheric CO2.

Not sure what's the best way to respond to this soooo....I'm gunna go with graph.
/

 

[Surely]

A wise man once told me, "Always follow the money".

 

[Harambe]

So, I was browsing reddit, and found this link:

https://i.imgur.com/pLFblKg.jpg

And I lulled, and lulled, and lulled...

 

[franklin]

So, I was browsing reddit, and found this link:

https://i.imgur.com/pLFblKg.jpg

And I lulled, and lulled, and lulled...

Back in the day when actual intellects who were honest with themselves frequently posted here, I shredded one of the 900+ page UN IPCC reports.

I'm sure you haven't read a single page of any of them, and you certainly do not have any scientific background if you buy into this type of pseudo-science that's meant for nothing more than political attempts at subverting publications in true peer reviewed journals.

It is a panel, a god that you worship because they are the final word and say because P-A-N-E-L. I'm sure you clapped like a baby as you lulled, and lulled, and lulled...

 

[Harambe]

Back in the day when actual intellects who were honest with themselves frequently posted here, I shredded one of the 900+ page UN IPCC reports.

I'm sure you haven't read a single page of any of them, and you certainly do not have any scientific background if you buy into this type of pseudo-science that's meant for nothing more than political attempts at subverting publications in true peer reviewed journals.

It is a panel, a god that you worship because they are the final word and say because P-A-N-E-L. I'm sure you clapped like a baby as you lulled, and lulled, and lulled...

You never existed in that day. You're a nobody that trolled a few people into your own strawman arguments that don't stand up, but took the initiative to accuse them of it first.

You're a liar, and a transparent troll that insists on going completely with, or completely against the grain quite literally on a whim. Whatever suits your fancy that moment.

You're a frickin garter snake, F-troupe. Now go play with your husband before he starts seeing trout on the side.

 

[fishonjazz]

You never existed in that day. You're a nobody that trolled a few people into your own strawman arguments that don't stand up, but took the initiative to accuse them of it first.

You're a liar, and a transparent troll that insists on going completely with, or completely against the grain quite literally on a whim. Whatever suits your fancy that moment.

You're a frickin garter snake, F-troupe. Now go play with your husband before he starts seeing trout on the side.

:^O

 

[franklin]

You never existed in that day. You're a nobody that trolled a few people into your own strawman arguments that don't stand up, but took the initiative to accuse them of it first.

You're a liar, and a transparent troll that insists on going completely with, or completely against the grain quite literally on a whim. Whatever suits your fancy that moment.

You're a frickin garter snake, F-troupe. Now go play with your husband before he starts seeing trout on the side.

Oh no, did somebody piss on your bible? This post would be less pathetic if you actually read the reports like I do.

Hyper religious people are obnoxious.

 

[Stoked]

Oh no, did somebody piss on your bible? This post would be less pathetic if you actually read the reports like I do.

Hyper religious people are obnoxious.

Hahaha. Not something I ever expected someone to call Roach.

 

[Siro]

Hahaha. Not something I ever expected someone to call Roach.

Religiosity goes FAR deeper than Bible thumping. It seems to be an extremely common aberration in human cognition (which suggests it was evolutionary advantageous).

Have you ever tried talking a hippie out of her "I need these crystals to cleanse my body of toxins" style of faith? It is just as impossible as trying to reason with the hardcorist of fundamentalist Christians.

 

[Stoked]

Religiosity goes FAR deeper than Bible thumping. It seems to be an extremely common aberration in human cognition (which suggests it was evolutionary advantageous).

Have you ever tried talking a hippie out of her "I need these crystals to cleanse my body of toxins" style of faith? It is just as impossible as trying to reason with the hardcorist of fundamentalist Christians.

I know it does. Usually the term spiritual is applied to those that believe in something more but are not part of a religion.

Either way it's not something I thought I'd hear Roach called. Just made me laugh is all.

 

[franklin]

I know it does. Usually the term spiritual is applied to those that believe in something more but are not part of a religion.

Either way it's not something I thought I'd hear Roach called. Just made me laugh is all.

You're missing the mark. Much of humanity is religious even if not spiritual at all. Think of your upbringing and what community means to you. Community is religious but not spiritual. It's what you are, what you want to be, who want to impress by your lifestyle and not be embarrassed for.

That's a rather generic example but the extensions are obvious.

 

[Harambe]

Hahaha. Not something I ever expected someone to call Roach.

Merely proves my accusations true. Randomly going out on any whim he decides at any given seconds, facts with him or not.

Again...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt6rRNANSgI

 

[Harambe]

You're missing the mark.

Like the marksman that hits the target stand.

"Just what I was aiming for"
*F-troupe sets down bb gun and proclaims himself God of all things projectile*

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Religiosity goes FAR deeper than Bible thumping. It seems to be an extremely common aberration in human cognition (which suggests it was evolutionary advantageous).

Have you ever tried talking a hippie out of her "I need these crystals to cleanse my body of toxins" style of faith? It is just as impossible as trying to reason with the hardcorist of fundamentalist Christians.

Well, perhaps then the true aberration is rationality, not religiosity, or if you like, irrationality (e.g, holding beliefs/making decisions despite lack of evidence, or even in face of contrary evidence).

There's, I believe, a well-developed amount of empirical evidence that humans, by and large, do not respond to rational arguments in forming their beliefs. Most beliefs are reached via irrational means, and defended similarly. Although there is also empirical evidence that smart people are particularly skilled at defending irrational beliefs, or beliefs arrived at via non-rational means.

 

[Siro]

Well, perhaps then the true aberration is rationality, not religiosity, or if you like, irrationality (e.g, holding beliefs/making decisions despite lack of evidence, or even in face of contrary evidence).

There's, I believe, a well-developed amount of empirical evidence that humans, by and large, do not respond to rational arguments in forming their beliefs. Most beliefs are reached via irrational means, and defended similarly. Although there is also empirical evidence that smart people are particularly skilled at defending irrational beliefs, or beliefs arrived at via non-rational means.

I don't think rationality can be meaningfully called an aberration since it exists outside of human cognition. Rational, or logical, thought is the process of discovery of the constituents of the causal chain. It is how a computer works, or any system that wishes to accomplish a task in an efficient manner. Religiosity does not exist outside of the context of human (or any other animal) thought. It probably conferred an evolutionary advantage for advancing the role of conformity in forming community identity. It also provided short cuts to satisfying humans' thirst for understanding, without actually going thru the difficult and lengthy process of acquiring verifiable explanations. It is thus only meaningful to think of religiosity as the aberration.

I agree with what you're saying about how people form worldviews. While it is unfortunate, I don't think it is inevitable. After all, people think rationally about a lot of practical matters that directly affect their lives (all of economics depend on the idea that people are rational actors). They should need to be taught, from early age, to avoid deviating from rational thought in all areas, not just practical areas.