Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

Discussion in 'Environment' started by flacaltenn, May 19, 2019.

  1. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    52,511
    Thanks Received:
    9,061
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +32,887
    Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.. And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..

    That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... DON'T hijack other specific topics.. Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...

    Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 6
    • Winner Winner x 3
  2. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,120
    Thanks Received:
    2,905
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,897
    Thank you. I would like to see more people reach an agreement
    that natural activities such as volcanic eruptions, and even man made
    production issues that are necessary such as agricultural for feeding
    the world's population, produce more of the emissions affecting the planet.

    There's still plenty of room for improvement and for arguing about
    the crisis and urgent necessity in stopping pollution and waste.

    We don't need to make a "test" or "condition" out of believing certain
    arguments, data or proof of what is causing levels of damage.

    There is plenty of proof we all benefit from cleaning up pollution and damage
    without arguing about "what the science proves or doesn't prove."

    We can focus on cleaner energy, healthier food sources and means of production, etc.
    without arguing or attacking anyone for what they believe or don't believe is the priority.

    I hope we get past this stage of trying to demonize and discredit
    one group or approach or another. And just focus on the reforms
    we CAN agree on which is plenty to work on for sustainable living!
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. petro
    Offline

    petro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    4,286
    Thanks Received:
    837
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    The cold north
    Ratings:
    +5,594
    To be honest I never considered myself a climate change denier.

    More of a climate change encourager. I fully encourage the appearance of Palm Trees in Duluth. Being tommorows forecast calls for snow in the area, I am completely discouraged about the current rate of warming.
    :45:
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    52,511
    Thanks Received:
    9,061
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +32,887
    There's a sliding scale on what is considered to be "GWarming denial".. It's an abusive, term meant to stoke discord and polarization.. But in reality, "denial" ranges from "I accept GW -- I just don't accept the CATASTROPHIC predictions that have been pounded by media/politicians based on MISREPRESENTATION of the actual science" ----- to the folks that will be using this thread that fall into to "I not only reject GWarming totally and IN ADDITION I don't believe in the physics and chemistry behind how the basic GreenHouse theory works"....

    I'm a "denier" of the first kind".:113: Relatively not an extremist on the topic. THIS thread is for the folks in that latter category who are just fillibustering EVERY GW thread with their "alternative science".... It's OK TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.. But they have to contained to threads where THAT IS the actual topic...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball Unobtanium Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    53,401
    Thanks Received:
    11,365
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +33,183
    I'm a "denier" of the 4th kind...The warmers are lying sacks of Malthusian declinist shit.

    The doomsayers have always ended up being proven wrong over time.

    Get a new hobby.
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. petro
    Offline

    petro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    4,286
    Thanks Received:
    837
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    The cold north
    Ratings:
    +5,594
    The notion that conservatives hate the environment is a bald faced lie. Many of us live rural, have private wells, hunt and fish producing license fees and revenue directly to benefit natural resources, spend more time in the wild than city dwellers.
    What we are against is signing on to aggrements that are punitive to America while giving so called developing nations a free pass to pollute, while all along we are reducing emissions. The Paris Accord was a farce. The hypocrites of the Green movement who live lavishly with the carbon footprint of an elephant lecturing those with a footprint of an ant in comparison make the whole issue a literal joke. They do not help real environmental concerns.

    The doom and gloom I have heard all my life. We passed some smart legislation which cleaned up our environment after things looked a little bleak during the 1970's. Now I see more wildlife than ever before, especially raptor species since the ban on DDT.

    Now regarding all that trash I see in urban areas along the highway...
    I can't believe for one second that all that was generated by conservatives.:eusa_naughty:
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. cnm
    Offline

    cnm Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Messages:
    15,575
    Thanks Received:
    9,690
    Trophy Points:
    2,255
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    Ratings:
    +40,662
    Now that's the sort of denial this thread was created for. Kudos.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Olde Europe
    Offline

    Olde Europe Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    3,280
    Thanks Received:
    3,700
    Trophy Points:
    2,065
    Ratings:
    +11,477
    Thanks. Let me express my hope this will be rigorously enforced, and what came rightly to be known as "Same Shit Different Day" will be safely quarantined in here, no longer to infest the reasonable world outside. Thanks, again.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. sparky
    Offline

    sparky Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    11,008
    Thanks Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +5,036
    here we go again.....
    [​IMG]
    what do you consider 'alt science'......??

    ~S~
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,621
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    195
    Ratings:
    +2,024
    I'm one of those guilty of carrying on against "alt-science" in the various threads FLACALTENN is referring to.

    There are several posters demanding that some of the laws of physics are not what have been promoted by scientists, textbooks, and lectures for the last 150 years. They have an alternate view of several thermodynamic laws which, to scientists, are dead wrong and lead to self-contradictions.

    I wouldn't even call it alt-science. It's simply wrong. It's obvious that alt-science is solely constructed to deny that the greenhouse effect exists. My view is that you don't really have to bastardize science to try to force your viewpoint that you disagree with global warming, or the catastrophic aspect. Those who promote alt-science are actually giving a bad name to others who have more honest questions about global warming.

    .
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page