Australian Politics Forum - How do people reject climate science?

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #75 - Sep 10^th, 2012 at 5:51am

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 9^th, 2012 at 11:28pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 9^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

Really, progs. The moon landing. You're not convinced we went to the moon. Lewandowsky might be onto something here. Although you are a very small sample.

It is more I dont really care. I dont feel I need to be a yes man or no man on any subject that does not involve my interest, but pathetic try from you indeed.

If your threshold of proof is so high that you're not sure if man landed on the moon or not, how ever are you going to accept the highly likely probability of anthropogenic warming. Assuming for the purposes of our debate that the AGW hypothesis is correct, which you accept as a possibility, there would never be enough evidence to pass your threshold of acceptance.

That's scary.

That's very scary.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #76 - Sep 10^th, 2012 at 6:24am

MOTR wrote on Sep 10^th, 2012 at 5:51am:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 9^th, 2012 at 11:28pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 9^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

Really, progs. The moon landing. You're not convinced we went to the moon. Lewandowsky might be onto something here. Although you are a very small sample.

It is more I dont really care. I dont feel I need to be a yes man or no man on any subject that does not involve my interest, but pathetic try from you indeed.

If your threshold of proof is so high that you're not sure if man landed on the moon or not, how ever are you going to accept the highly likely probability of anthropogenic warming. Assuming for the purposes of our debate that the AGW hypothesis is correct, which you accept as a possibility, there would never be enough evidence to pass your threshold of acceptance.

That's scary.

That's very scary.

The subject interests me. You really do have a comprehension problem.

I was not there to witness the moon landing. I dont care if they landed on the moon. If you believe they landed on the moon, then good for you. If you believe they faked it, then all power to you. I dont give a stuff. It does not impact my life and does not interest me.

Got it now.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: How do people reject climate science? Reply #77 - Sep 10^th, 2012 at 4:35pm I don't have a comprehension problem. Your detachment with reality is that you believe such a massive and sustained hoax is possible. I find this very interesting.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #78 - Sep 10^th, 2012 at 5:11pm

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 10^th, 2012 at 6:24am:

MOTR wrote on Sep 10^th, 2012 at 5:51am:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 9^th, 2012 at 11:28pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 9^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

Really, progs. The moon landing. You're not convinced we went to the moon. Lewandowsky might be onto something here. Although you are a very small sample.

It is more I dont really care. I dont feel I need to be a yes man or no man on any subject that does not involve my interest, but pathetic try from you indeed.

If your threshold of proof is so high that you're not sure if man landed on the moon or not, how ever are you going to accept the highly likely probability of anthropogenic warming. Assuming for the purposes of our debate that the AGW hypothesis is correct, which you accept as a possibility, there would never be enough evidence to pass your threshold of acceptance.

That's scary.

That's very scary.

The subject interests me. You really do have a comprehension problem.

I was not there to witness the moon landing. I dont care if they landed on the moon. If you believe they landed on the moon, then good for you. If you believe they faked it, then all power to you. I dont give a stuff. It does not impact my life and does not interest me.

Got it now.

Yehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, YOU HATE THE WORLD!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #79 - Sep 10^th, 2012 at 5:11pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 10:34am:

MOTR wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 10:31am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 10:09am:

I agree with the science and that humans cause some change.

I do not agree with some of you solution to just allow the worst polluters to keep increasing while we all try to reduce just because you feel sorry for them.

We are the worst polluters, Avram.

No you are not.
It is China.

Or if you take your insane per capita our biggest problem is the Dutch Antilles and Qatar!!

JEWS, JUST SO LOL!

Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #80 - Sep 10^th, 2012 at 5:13pm

MOTR wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

We've had this debate before. You claim to be studying economics yet you seem to have no concept of the importance of using per capita measurements. Over half of us live in China and India, of course their emmissions from these countries are going to be significant. I don't believe we have the right to lock them into emmission rates less than ours without some sort of compensation. This is not some sort of radical view, it is a concept well understood by those working to negotiate some sort of collective agreement. It is why concessions have been made in the past and why concessions will be a part of any workable solution of the future.

And, Avram, I've travelled to China several times. I've lived in a Chinese household. I know first hand that a Chinese family has a much smaller carbon footprint than an Australian family. We don't want them getting close to our levels, we should be aiming to get closer to theirs.

AVRAM HAS NO RESPECT FOR YOU OR YOUR OPINION UNLESS YOUR A FILTHY JEW!

NO, I'M NOT BEING A RACIST: I'M BEING PRACTICAL!

Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: How do people reject climate science?
Reply #81 - Sep 10^th, 2012 at 5:15pm

MOTR wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

So MOTR you didn't answer my point.

Do you believe the Dutch Antilles and Falkland Islands are our biggest problems?

Any individual with a large carbon footprint is part of the problem. Collectively these individuals, wherever they live, are our biggest problem. The people of the Falklands Islands and the Dutch Antilles have a responsibility to reduce their emissions, irrespective of how little they collectively contribute to the problem.

I believe China rising to our level of emissions is a huge problem and more worrying than the emissions of the Falkland Islands. This does not contradict my position that China needs concessions if we want to limit them to emissions below ours.

I didn't answer your question, Avram because it's non sequitur. A point I made in the last thread you tried to derail with this same nonsense.

AVRAM, A FILTHY JEW, ANSWERS QUESTIONS WITH QUESTIONS!

AVRAM IS A WARMONGER!
Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged