Quote from: KonstantinosM on October 16, 2018, 02:34:10 AM

I'll refute all your "arguments".

1.The cartoon tries to impress the idea, using humor that climate change is belief without evidence, like a religion.

Science is a process by which personal biases are limited. One can do all the experimentation and observation needed, independently and inexpensively to get to the conclusion that the earth is warming.

The science demos date back to the 1850s and the idea that humans were going to cause a shift in the climate was voiced in the 1890s.

So basically in 2018, only a person who is scientifically illiterate will doubt that climate change is one of the biggest problems we're facing.

Yet you deny one of the primary tenets of science, that it is never done and new, more accurate information is constantly being added. Doubt is at the core of Science itself. The cartoon simply illustrated your willingness to "have faith" that the people who tell you these things are correct, rather than actually reviewing the information, pro and con carefully yourself to come to a conclusion based on actual empirical data. People thought a lot of stupid things in the 1890's, the fact that the concept has existed for a long time in no way serves to validate the premise.

Quote from: KonstantinosM on October 16, 2018, 02:34:10 AM

2. A list of people with irrelevant credentials, with a political agenda is useless. I don't trust people just because they have a PhD. I've seen way too many PhDs attached to scams and shams and ridiculous projects.

What is relevant is first of all the evidence, the observations, ~~climate models with predictive capabilities.~~

Your second argument is fallacious, like the first. It's an argument from Authority and feigned concern. I hate these arguments. Would somebody think of the children? Would somebody think of the poor starving people in Africa that you would be helping if you hand me over your money. Sincerely FUCK YOU AND ANYONE WHO MAKES THAT SHITTY ARGUMENT.

I made the important parts bold and underlined. This is exactly what most skeptics of the anthropogenic climate change theory would say. This cuts both ways.
Also, what exactly is my "second argument?", Please quote. It is difficult to respond to something if you don't specifically name it. The fact is people rely on energy to live, and reducing our capacity to produce it would directly lead to MANY lost lives. This isn't some boo-hoo story, it is simply a fact. Honestly though, I am really not even sure what you are responding to exactly. Also those "climate models" have been proven over and over again to have been manipulated to get a desired result. Even if they weren't demonstrated to be frauds, it would still just be a predictive model, NOT EMPIRICAL DATA.

Quote from: KonstantinosM on October 16, 2018, 02:34:10 AM

3. A video about the aforementioned list, 16 minutes, Since I already refuted this I don't need to watch it.

That is convenient. I guess that after-school special knows more than a PhD and founder of Greenpeace.

Quote from: KonstantinosM on October 16, 2018, 02:34:10 AM

4. A 30 minute video titled: "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout - Dr Patrick Moore" that has all the promise of conspiratorial garbage, I'll watch a little just to refute it. I'm getting the vibe of a paid of conference of speakers with dirty coal money stuffed in their pockets. Same people that said smoking doesn't cause cancer and will make your dick hard. There's always paid whores out there and this is a very old trick. Trying to co-opt scientifically sounding names and paying off sad failures to channel people into their shitty arguments. I never cared about Greenpeace. The name Dr Patrick Moore means nothing to me. But he is important sounding. They'd never publish the same video without adding Dr before his name or the word Greenpeace and I don't think anyone is dumb enough not to know why.

So these guys are propped up by the heartland institute. The bias here is palpable.

Here is a real lolcow from the Heartland institute from the wikipedia article, with source and all:

Heartland has long questioned the links between tobacco smoking, secondhand smoke, and lung cancer and the social costs imposed by smokers.

Source: Tesler LE, Malone RE (July 2010). ""Our reach is wide by any corporate standard": how the tobacco industry helped defeat the Clinton health plan and why it matters now". American Journal of Public Health. 100 (7): 117488. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.179150. PMC 2882403. PMID 20466958.

They are also the same people behind that list, so we've just been seeing the same argument over and over.

How about instead of attacking the venue the man is speaking in, perhaps you can respond to his arguments. He is a PhD and founder of Greenpeace after all. He might have something relevant to say. Vibes man, like, very scientific dude.

Quote from: KonstantinosM on October 16, 2018, 02:34:10 AM

5. Yikes, It's the same shit. But I don't want to visit this sketchy site again.

Again? Did some one forget they have switched socks?

Quote from: KonstantinosM on October 16, 2018, 02:34:10 AM

I don't know what to say, this was a mountain of shit. Compare this to a mountain of evidence for Climate change* and it's impacts.

Starting with increased rates of sea level rise.
and
A Net loss of Glaciers.

These two can be observed by anyone.

It takes an incredible amount of heat to actually melt ice. To get from 0C Ice to 0C water it takes the same heat as taking 0C water close to boiling.

In fact to melt just 50 grams of ice you need 4000 Calories or 4 kcal.

So when more ice is melting then forming you know that the climate of a local place is changing.

I don't even need to look it up, I know the evidence will be there. Let's look at Glacier National Park.

Here is what I got off the Internet. I bet a deeper search would just point out to the same conclusion: "At the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, the area containing the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today."

And this is my argument.

Also try and refute this, as a source or as a list of arguments.

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

*Source needed.

Neither of your examples there in any way prove humans are causing global warming. They would be, if anything evidence of global warming, not evidence humans are creating it.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses You know NASA, in the pocket of big oil as usual.
Also you might want to learn the difference between local climate change and global climate change.

Sure. If I am not mistaken that video did not mention man made climate change once, and is about at the level of an after school special for gradeschoolers, but ok.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425509/peak-oil-debunked/

Lots of doom and gloom. Very shallow understanding of facts with little regard for application of new technologies. Also it is old as fuck... which is funny because I can show you exactly how wrong those predictive charts they used are.