Coalition of the Confused
Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
- 1214
MEMBERS - 62613
MESSAGES - 0
POSTS TODAY
Discussions
Ignoring the debate on Climate Change. General Confusion
From: BerrySteph
9/14/19
Jenifer (Zarknorph) said: ... he has no capacity for answering questions, as that would require independent thought.
I think that's obvious.
it would still be salutory to demand answers from him - then do the same to Adwil and BM.
Wouldn't stop their campaign but stop some of their silliness.
Oh, wait a moment, they're totally shameless, clearly know nothing about David Irving and can't justify even their headline accusations against him.
Cannot defend Deborah Lipstadt from my barbs!
From: bml00
9/14/19
Ignoring the debate on climate change - the esteemed Jew hater and resident imbecile is talking about Adwil and David Irving ????
BM
From: BerrySteph
9/14/19
bml00 said:Ignoring the debate on climate change - the esteemed Jew hater and resident imbecile is talking about Adwil and David Irving ????
You've no capacity to answer questions.
You might even be worse than the average Climate Denier - and that's saying something!
From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)
9/15/19
'It was left to rack and ruin': Rainforest revived on land once owned by Christopher Skase
An oil palm plantation once owned by the failed tycoon is replanted by hand and transformed into a lush rainforest on the edge of Daintree National Park.
Read more from ABC NewsFrom: Jenifer (Zarknorph)
9/18/19
Even without solar panels, it would only cost $3.80 a day to run this eco-friendly house
Not only can this home withstand bushfire attack, but powering its appliances, lights, and heating and cooling costs as little as a daily cup of coffee.
Read more from ABC NewsFrom: ElDotardo
9/20/19
Jenifer (Zarknorph) said...
This thread is devoted to the people who ignore the debate on the environmental impact of humans and just roll up their sleeves and clean up the mess.
This article is inappropriate for the intended topic of this discussion.
No hijacking please.
Really? Seems to be more dedicated to calling me names *chuckle* - no worries, I can take it (I simply consider the source). Oh, was that mean?
Anyway, let's hear it for those smart enought to reject the hoax of AGW.
Raise your hand if you know it's a scam .. .
From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)
9/21/19
The debate is over for those with intelligence.
The rest just shout "Hoax!" "Witch Hunt!" "Fake Nyooooz!"
Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you.
From: ElDotardo
9/22/19
Back atcha' . . .
No place in debate for climate contrarians
Consensus enforcement is a potent new force in climate science where sceptical views increasingly are being silenced as a danger to public good.
Academic website The Conversation said this week it would ban comments from those it judged to be climate deniers and lock their accounts. The Conversation editor and executive director Misha Ketchell justified the ban on sceptical comments as a defence of “quiet Australians” who “understand and respect the science”.
The Conversation’s shift to a monologue reflects a deeper push that is raising alarm worldwide.
Contrarian scientist Jennifer Marohasy is among those listed on an international table of climate sceptics whose views should not be published. Marohasy says she is “proud to be listed as part of the resistance to what will one day be recognised as postmodern science”.
“I base my arguments and conclusions on evidence, and I apply logic. Of course, science is a method. Science is never ‘settled’,” she says. “Those who appeal primarily to the authority of science and the notion of a consensus are more interested in politics. Central to the scientific method is the hypothesis that can be tested: that can potentially be falsified. We must therefore always be open-minded, tolerant and ready to be proven wrong.”
Also on the list published by University of California, Merced, were international climate scientists Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen and Richard Tol, as well as academics Bjorn Lomborg and Australia’s Ian Plimer and Maurice Newman.
The list was drawn from research published in the journal Nature, which juxtaposed 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across 200,000 research publications and 100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change.
In a statement accompanying the article, lead author Alex Petersen says: “It’s time to stop giving these people (contrarians) visibility, which can be easily spun into false authority.
“By tracking the digital traces of specific individuals in vast troves of publicly available media data, we developed methods to hold people and media outlets accountable for their roles in the climate change denialism movement, which has given rise to climate change misinformation at scale.”
Curry says the paper “does substantial harm to climate science … There are a spectrum of perspectives, especially at the kn
From: katiek2
9/22/19
ElDotardo said:“This concern distorts what news-gathering is about,” CJR says. “Journalism has always been about righting wrongs, holding the powerful to account, calling out lies.”
No, journalism is all about factually reporting the news. News sources are not supposed to be activists, whether on the right or left.
From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)
9/23/19
ElDotardo said:Consensus enforcement is a potent new force in climate science where sceptical views increasingly are being silenced as a danger to public good.
You want balance in the Media?
Fine! Then one climate sceptic and two of their friends can have their say, then NINETY SEVEN scientists will provide studies, data, evidence and proof.
And you will have balance.
Of course, you may be denying the far simpler conclusion that the handful of GW holdouts are stepping back and accepting the overwhelming evidence.