If your schtick is to believe any of the peer reviewed data (it’s not his which you don’t seem to understand) then point it out and post refutation to it. Since it’s so EASY, you should be able to do it quickly. Looking forward to what you have to show.
The Environment
- Thread starter Mierin
- Start date
:laughpound
It’s an interesting thing to rage about. Getting a true visual of the data on equal axis lines.
Interesting that how you make charts at your work is now the gold standard
Since we are talking about work, The Government wouldn’t allow the chart on the left to be shown to customers if it were data in my industry. The visual distortion could create a bias of the true data in their view and misrepresent the findings.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Strangelove
New member
If you're referring to this guy, specifically then sure. He's a quack intentionally trying to stir up gullible people. At worst he's intentionally trying to stir up climate denial, at best he's stupid.
He starts off by citing that anonymous "people" claim solar panels don't produce carbon. This is a tactic made famous by Trump citing unnamed "people" who "claim X BUT", however in reality nobody, in fact, claims this. Making anything emits carbon and doing so in a poor country with fewer regulations is going to result in more emissions. This isn't disputed by anybody and, frankly, this should be your first clue that the person you're engaging with is not to be taken seriously.
He framed this in a way to make it sound like teh Libs DUPED us all, because manufacturing solar panels PRODUCES CARBON. Did you know that? Stupid libs.
But... the guy tweeting knows that the Inflation Reduction Act signed by Biden aims to increase domestic solar panel production. The guy also knows that the amount of solar emissions used to manufacture solar panels is much less than the amount of emissions saved in their use. There are multiple studies, including this one by the U.S. Department of Energy, which estimates its takes 1 to 4 years to "payback" their carbon debt. Panels typically have a lifespan of 25 to 30 years, so the math is pretty easy. This data is confirmed by studies all around the globe. The Solar ERoEI is pretty good.
Now, if you're referring to Climate Change as a whole, well, the evidence is overwhelming. NASA sums it up nicely, while oil and gas companies don't outright deny it anymore. They just try to delay action (they've known for decades). Honestly, I'll end my past with this instead of posting source after source you're going to ignore...
Climate change caused by humans is one of the most studied aspects of science. It's also one of the most agreed upon. It's not even close to being a debate.
Hold on there Doctor. We can get to the solar panel talk next if you want. Let’s go ahead and talk about the piece you raged about and said would be easy to dispute the data inside. Or maybe you moved to solar panels for a reason :dunno
Dr. Strangelove
New member
I referenced the solar panel tweet because of two reasons:
1. It's the first tweet in a thread you referenced in your own post.
2. It's a perfect example of somebody arguing in bad faith with something easily disproven because it's been studied many times.
As for this post, it's just a combination of random graphs and data points without the ability to check the sources of what provides them. It's literally dozens of JPEGs cropped onto a web page, mostly hard to read and difficult to see where they came from. It's pretty obvious it's a climate denial farm masquerading as a place to tell viewers that everything is honky-dory.
It's easy, with any effort whatsoever, to find overwhelming evidence of human caused climate change. I referenced and cited numerous sources on climate change in the post you quoted. You just don't want to believe in it for some reason. Legitimate question: why don't you believe in overwhelming scientific consensus? Is it Political identity?
This is fair. I would like to be clear about my intentions: I don't think I'm going to convince @Archy1221 of anything, that's simply not possible. I do get entertainment from his posts, however. Particularly when his worldview confronts reality. Whether or not it's trying to justify voting for Trump, supporting DeSantis, or trying to explain while he's right and 97% of scientists are wrong, it's funny to me. I'm a masochist.Just a reminder guise…
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL. The sources are literally listed on or next to each piece. I admire your effort in trying to gaslight others who wouldn’t know better though.
You didn’t dispute a singly thing when you quite clearly said in an earlier post it would be EASY to do so. Instead you just regurgitated a generic post you’ve made at least 10 time before but said 97% instead of 98%.
teachercd
Active member
Dr. Strangelove
New member
The pictures are randomly taken and the graphs provided without context. The pictures are small, the sources are not clickable, and often it's just a picture of a random turtle, wildfire, or a screenshot from a website. This is not the source you think it is, and why is provided as the Holy Grail of climate denial says a lot.
This list of over 200 organizations holds the position that climate change is caused by humans. Each have cited studies, research, and papers that confirm climate change. It easily disputes the hodgepodge eye-sore website listed by the quack on Twitter.
If by "didn't dispute a single thing" you mean "Dr. Strangelove pointed out the dishonesty expressed in one of the first tweets on his timeline about solar panels and how it easily shows he's a dishonest quack acting in bad faith arguments while simultaneously listing multiple sources explaing why he's wrong" then you are correct.You didn’t dispute a singly thing when you quite clearly said in an earlier post it would be EASY to do so. Instead you just regurgitated a generic post you’ve made at least 10 time before but said 97% instead of 98%.
His entire Twitter account is basically quackery, dishonesty, and selective. It's a perfect distillation on how climate denial has went from "its not happening at all" to "its happening but things aren't so bad" in less than a decade. They had to make this pivot because the evidence is overwhelming.
You are welcome to explain why the vast majority of science and scientists - 97% (sorry I said 98 earlier, that was what I thought off the top of my head) are wrong. Massive deep-state conspiracy? Liberal scientists can't be trusted?
Last edited by a moderator:
And herein lies the problem with the climate cult. The post by Michael you are responding to and disparaging doesn’t even make the assertion you are now fighting! It isn’t about who, what, how, any sort of climate change has happened. It’s mostly about the extent of how much the climate has changed (btw, it’s ALWAYS gonna change) and how it affects human existence.
Yet you always just go back to “humans are responsible”. But for what? Things like Greater damage by storms??? Sure, we have more people living on the shore!! Duh!! Things like it’s super hot in Arizona? Duh!! Its biggest city is basically a desert climate, yet it’s a growing metro. People have adapted to all this “man made climate catastrophe cult science”
Would you mean like global cooling to global warming to climate change to its man made to who cares why it’s happening we need to fix it to……..
BTW…..what relevant person has said the climate doesn’t change? Who says “it’s not happening at all”? We see people saying it’s currently a relatively stable climate environment. We see people saying man isn’t the main driver in whatever short term climate changes has been made.
You literally are doing the same thing that you complained the tweeter was doing :lol: