This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Your most controversial view?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 240

Smash Bandicoot

Original post by enterflora

Animals have just as much right to live and be free from torture as humans.

I'd go as far as say some of us humans should be put in a zoo, let the more worthy animals have their freedom.

Reply 241

Messiah Complex

Original post by Chlorophile

No you're not! Having a degree in a science subject doesn't make you right. You've got a piece of paper to say that you've studied a STEM subject (which for all I know, isn't even vaguely related to climate science). How on earth does that make you more knowledgeable than the entire global scientific community?
I didn't say it did. What I'm saying is that it makes me more qualified than you when you tried to discredit my viewpoint on the basis of what my argument actually was. Because of the argument I took you tried to discredit me. As I said, you parade around the forum like you know it all and no, the 'entire global scientific community' does not agree with your viewpoint as well which you seem to be implying here.

Here's a number of scientists, all of whom are vastly more qualified than you, a college kid, who oppose the notion that global warming is man made. Of course now, you'll tell me they're ALL wrong and you know better. You also seem to be under the impression that a majority consensus is always right in comparison to a minority opinion. That is not the truth and you'd have to be wholesomely naive and extremely stupid to think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

If you claim to know so much about climatology, tell me why the mainstream scientific opinion is wrong. Don't make political arguments, this isn't a political debate. Give me evidence that contradicts the prevailing scientific opinion that the observed climate change is largely anthropogenic. If you're such a great scientist then constructing a scientific argument shouldn't be too difficult.

To suggest it isn't political is ridiculous. Of course it is. I have already told you there is ample evidence proving statistics have been manipulated, in regard to raw data, to give the impression of man made global warming.

I gave my point in response to the OP. You challenged me to a debate when you started quoting me so you provide me RAW DATA suggesting that global warming is indeed man made. Oh, but don't let adjustment bias get in the way of your illogical arguments.

Now you'll tell me adjustment bias is needed which is of course true if you want to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

Rather than reminding me about how old I am, how about you explain why I'm wrong? If I'm so stupid as you make out, that oughtn't be too difficult.

Why don't you prove to me why I am wrong then with actual raw data as opposed to brushed up statistics to suit the agenda of those releasing it. I'll wait for that raw data to turn up please. And when you're parading around the forum like you're some expert on climatology then yes I will remind you of your age because even those who are 40-50 aren't experts on the subject and therefore you are far from such. The difference is, I have my opinion and you cant handle that and think you are RIGHT based on the side of the argument you have taken. Truth is that you are intolerant of those with different viewpoints which again goes to show your youth and naivety.

Reply 242

Chlorophile

Original post by SH0405

Seems logical to me. Shall we agree to disagree?

Well I'm not going to agree to disagree. If you adopt that attitude, you're not going to solve the problem. Most violent criminals have followed pretty much the exact same route in life, all of their problems starting with social deprivation. If you're alienated from society from the moment you're born because of social inequality, it's really not a massive surprise if you end up on the other side. I'm not trying to undermine the seriousness of murder, they deserve to be punished. What I am saying is that convincing ourselves that the responsibility lies purely on their shoulders and that society has no part to play in the blame is simply going to allow the problem to continue.

Reply 243

Messiah Complex

Original post by Xin Xang

1.Yes but surely it is their friends in big oil companies who are under a large amount of pressure from the government and general Population as a consequence of this global warming "lie".

Common sense would tell you that in the absence of this theory, oil companies would be far more prosperous.

2. So you are telling me, that scientists throughout the world, went through the effort of studying a science for many years. Only to propagate A false theory in the hope of receiving investment to further propagate this theory.

Don't let adjustment bias get in the way of the raw data and actual facts though.

Why stop here? Why not scrutinise all scientific theories in the same manner.

All SCIENTIFIC THEORIES should be questioned. Anyone who does a BSc/BEng will know first hand that anything, absolutely anything, within the scientific community is open to debate. If it weren't then discoveries wouldn't be made neither would advancements such as discovery of the Higgs-Boson.

I guess gravity is also lie, designed to improve the sales of aeroplanes so that everyone would be kept under the false notion that humans cannot fly?

:facepalm:

This is the common route taken by those who oppose the truth. Rather than actually discuss the raw data rather than the manipulated data, they resort to personal attacks and silly attempts like this to try and discredit the person they're debating with. Its actually hilarious. Liberal Democrat by any chance?

:lol:

Reply 244

Smash Bandicoot

If your girlfriend cheats on you it's your fault for not being attractive/successful enough in the first place. Sexual attraction is amoral. Too many bitter whiney men crying about how their girlfriend cheated on them with a hotter richer guy and it's somehow the woman's fault. This goes back to my 'some are better than others, some would be shot first' statement. If you cannot live up to their standards you deserve pain.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 245

BullViagra

-smoking is not as bad as people make it
-transexual girls are not girls and transexual men are not men
-useless people have useless genetics, and their kids would be useless and so on
-genders are not equal, men and women are different (does not mean we should treat one worst than the other etc etc) in other words gender equity>gender equality

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 246

Smash Bandicoot

Certain people are weak-willed individuals who choose to ignore the people who tell them the cold hard truth, such as 'I am better than you' or 'there is no opinion here, here are the facts, I am right you are wrong'. This goes back to special snowflake entitlement complex

Reply 247

Messiah Complex

Still waiting on all the climate sheep that will believe anything put in front of them to argue against the raw data.

Reply 248

Smash Bandicoot

Low testosterone men should remove themselves from the gene pool i.e. go incel. If they develop depression as such then they should grow some balls, the reason they're incels in the first place.

In general when women say 'I love you for who you are' they are lying, they actually love you for your potential and value, what kind of ****ing idiot is attracted to someone's insecurities and problems? Indeed when a woman says this to a partner unless it's their mum, the man should take it as a sign to up their game because they are fishing elsewhere.

In general straight women do not necessarily need the Charles Atlas model-type but they are seeking out the 'alpha male' in some form (simply the highest value male in their environment, this might be the most socially confident, popular, funniest, most intelligent, hell best dressed but you must be better than the competition). This is essentially the meaning of modern hypergamy.

Self-esteem and self-help is a creation of the post-war psychology movement during the crisis in masculinity and spike in reported incidents of neuroses. One can see it as a buffer to the Holocaust. This is good but it has now gone too far and leads back to, you guessed it, whiney entitlement 'special snowflake' status.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 249

Dprince

Original post by Xin Xang

Not at all. I would classify quite a few members of parliament as literally retarded, despite the fact that they were able to attend "elite" universities.

And btw I did not say the most intelligent on the subject of politics, but rather those whose skills in critical analysis are such that they can make decisions that would be advantageous for the largest number of people.

I think we can agree that many of the decisions made in parliament today are often designed to benefit a select group of individuals. :wink:

We can definitely agree on that! The whole meritocracy style thing we got going on here is much similar to the House of Lords though isn't it! Those who have proven themselves to have the potential to benefit society through their knowledge base in things other than politics? :wink:

Reply 250

Chlorophile

Original post by Messiah Complex

I didn't say it did. What I'm saying is that it makes me more qualified than you when you tried to discredit my viewpoint on the basis of what my argument actually was. Because of the argument I took you tried to discredit me. As I said, you parade around the forum like you know it all and no, the 'entire global scientific community' does not agree with your viewpoint as well which you seem to be implying here.

Here's a number of scientists, all of whom are vastly more qualified than you, a college kid, who oppose the notion that global warming is man made. Of course now, you'll tell me they're ALL wrong and you know better. You also seem to be under the impression that a majority consensus is always right in comparison to a minority opinion. That is not the truth and you'd have to be wholesomely naive and extremely stupid to think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

To suggest it isn't political is ridiculous. Of course it is. I have already told you there is ample evidence proving statistics have been manipulated, in regard to raw data, to give the impression of man made global warming.

I gave my point in response to the OP. You challenged me to a debate when you started quoting me so you provide me RAW DATA suggesting that global warming is indeed man made. Oh, but don't let adjustment bias get in the way of your illogical arguments.

Now you'll tell me adjustment bias is needed which is of course true if you want to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

Why don't you prove to me why I am wrong then with actual raw data as opposed to brushed up statistics to suit the agenda of those releasing it. I'll wait for that raw data to turn up please. And when you're parading around the forum like you're some expert on climatology then yes I will remind you of your age because even those who are 40-50 aren't experts on the subject and therefore you are far from such. The difference is, I have my opinion and you cant handle that and think you are RIGHT based on the side of the argument you have taken. Truth is that you are intolerant of those with different viewpoints which again goes to show your youth and naivety.

This is absurd, I honestly don't know if you're taking the piss. Your evidence - to negate billions upon billions of data points from satellite, meteorological and bathymetric data, is a time series of minimum temperatures from an air force base in East Australia. This tells us absolutely nothing about global trends - a year 7 student could tell you that.

You want data? Let's start with the oceanic heat content time series constructed from the ARGO array of bathymetric probes, an array of over 3000 top-spec probes scattered around the globe that take daily probes of temperature and salinity down the water column, giving a comprehensive view of the change in oceanic heat content across the globe. Note the use of the word "globe", rather than Amberley RAF base in East Australia. This is from the NODC at NOAA, rather than an obscure meteorological organisation from Australia. Or the land surface air temperature time series taken from multiple satellite measurements, also from NOAA (also global). Or sea-surface temperature, once again with multiple satellite data sets (did I mention they're global too?).

Reply 251

Juichiro

Original post by Asklepios

And you're arguing that white skin is a risk factor and not a disability in itself. Of course it's not a significant one in modern times and in Europe. But in the past in Africa, having white skin may be such a significant risk factor that it would be considered as a disease.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Seriously? With the ozone depletion still going on (albeit much slower), it is likely to become a significant risk in the future.

Reply 252

Messiah Complex

Original post by Chlorophile

Basically, 'this data doesn't show me what I want it to show so therefore I'll just attack it and the poster'. Great logic but I have come to expect that from people who cant actually debate. Also, don't use the 'even a year 7 student could tell you that line when you're not far off being one yourself buddy.

You want data? Let's start with the oceanic heat content time series constructed from the ARGO array of bathymetric probes, an array of over 3000 top-spec probes scattered around the globe that take daily probes of temperature and salinity down the water column, giving a comprehensive view of the change in oceanic heat content across the globe. Note the use of the word "globe", rather than Amberley RAF base in East Australia. This is from the NODC at NOAA, rather than an obscure meteorological organisation from Australia. Or the land surface air temperature time series taken from multiple satellite measurements, also from NOAA (also global). Or sea-surface temperature, once again with multiple satellite data sets (did I mention they're global too?).

None of that is raw data. I asked for raw data. Try again. Also its hilarious how you've linked .gov websites as if they'd never tell any lies isn't it? You mean like the lovely ONS that definitely does not manipulate statistics? Laughable. You are an incredibly naive person.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 253

MagicNMedicine

Original post by RFowler

The environment should be at least as important as the economy.

Don't know how controversial that is in terms of wider public opinion. But the political establishment doesn't take environmental protection very seriously when there is money to be made from damaging activities, and there is no sign of that changing.

Well I agree with this completely.

Have you noticed the hypocrisy that when people go on about the need to cut education, health, welfare spending, infrastructure investment etc, they usually talk about how they are suggesting it "for the sake of our children" but start to talk to them about taking tougher environmental measures and they suddenly couldn't care less about their children.

I think with the environment some people just take the issue that if they don't want to believe in climate change etc, then it doesn't exist, the scientific consensus that it does is irrelevant, they must just all be wrong and its a global conspiracy to make us protect the environment when we don't have to!

Also there's a general correlation between denying climate change/deny the risks to the environment and ranting about immigrants/poor people. It's invariably the same types of people!

Reply 254

SH0405

Original post by Chlorophile

All things considered, they decide to murder someone.

Reply 255

iAmanze

Fat people are disgusting people who cannot exercise basic self-control.

Reply 256

Vestal Priestess

Abortion should only be available to the wealthy.

Reply 257

Asklepios

Original post by Chlorophile

I'd argue that there isn't a straight definition for disability. A lot of people with autism would argue that they only have a disability in the context of societal norms. Many people with autism (particularly mild forms like Aspergers) are perfectly happy with themselves and only feel that they are disabled because they're socially different. It's a very subjective area but you could (I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it, but I hope you see my point) make the argument that non-ASD people are the disabled ones because they waste a huge amount of resources on silly social norms, are too emotional and subjective, etc. There are some things which objectively make functioning more difficult, like life-limiting diseases or losing a sense but it's a lot more complicated when you go into psychological problems

There are various sociological models for defining/describing disability and/or disease. These tend to focus on the ability to conform with societal norms. I don't really think this is a good way of looking at things because societal norms are largely variable and subjective. For example, in the past, there was the notion of a "typical family" with mother, father and kids which was seen as the main goal in life. Obviously homosexuality wasn't compatible with this so was considered a disorder. Now homosexuality is largely compatible with normal social life so isn't considered a disorder from a sociological perspective.

I think a better model of disease should consider the idea of physiological dysfunction. Homosexuality is a disorder of normal sexual attraction, though I recognise many people class it as a physiological variant. The point you make about ASD being an advantage is interesting, and I would agree that in certain situations less severe autism/aspergers may be an advantage. Severe autism is totally different though.

Reply 258

flibber

Original post by Messiah Complex

Where does NASA get its money from? It doesn't take a genius to work it out. It's rather easy to manipulate data to create thousands of research jobs and get further funding. Its happened elsewhere as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

Why do you trust governments regarding global warming, but you trust them regarding what happened in 9/11? Surely if governments lie to us, we might as well believe that attacks on 9/11 was staged by the US government and that terrorists are funded by the CIA- surely that explains the increased surveillance of ordinary citizens?

Or we could say the government is deliberately lowering the statistics for the unemployment rate to make the economy seem better to gain support for the general election?