Why can't conservatives accept scientific consensus? - Politics Discussion

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 3 years ago

This has been asked before , you'll get a torrent of abuse about commies cant see the scientific facts about genders and a load of other nutjob stuff lumped in as "left" from open borders to Flat Earth theory

In order to deflect from their own unwillingness to accept facts they dont like becasue they are inconvenient , like covid and climate change

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

Hence why I put "Speaking specifically " but yes that is what I expected. I have seen some very few honest debaters on here like warrior poet I was hoping to attract that type of debate and conversation

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 3 years ago

Let's say we all did, all at once. What next? Do we bankrupt ourselves with energy policies that do not work? Do we destroy our economy to reduce our emissions while China and India do nothing? The problem is not whether or not it's accepted. It's what we do about it. If we let the left run rampant with their "solutions", we'll be powerless and broke in 10yrs.

Sorry but this is all just a way to manipulate emotional people into voting democrat. It's hysterical Chicken Little politics.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

Sir. STAY on topic. I will not be addressing your subject changing in any way other than to point it out.

It went from "why don't you believe in census please provide evidence:"

to

"lets talk about the debate over the economic implications! what about china and India!"

sir. grow up and stay on topic

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 3 years ago

I think he is staying on topic - you did cite Climate change specifically.
He is explaining why conservatives wont accept that
or rather he's explaining why they do believe it , but refuse to do anything about it .

and you only gave 2.5 examples of "refusal to science"

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

the economic implications can certainly be discussed once we agree on if it is real or not. but as we have a massive group who will not even accept the science and agree its happening I feel we need agreement.

plus the economic implications and path we take is such a massive discussion and topic on its own

one is do you accept the science if not why not and provide evidence the other is what will be the economic implications and best way to go about it.

without even getting to the overhelming amount of studies published yearly of which 98%+ agree man made climate change is a thing (which is the most relevant source of information)

I can provide you with 200 institutions, representing millions of scientists, who agree.

why is it I can provide you hundreds of reputable, real scientific and academic institutions who agree, and your list only has 10 people in actually related fields?

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

He did stay on topic. It just wasn't what you wanted to hear so you accused him of not staying on topic. This is typical of what people do when they don't get the reply that they want to hear. The media is loaded with people that do this.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

if my topic was "can you please explain what you think are the best plans for the economy moving forward or its economic drawbacks of climate change policy" you would be right.

I am not saying it is not related/ a subbranch.

but he did not address anything I said

its like you trying to say evolution is real and wanting to know the counter arguments, and someone chiming in about the high economic costs of teaching evolution in our schools.

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

So basically you have no answer for what he said lol.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Don’t waste your time with Leo, the fucker is a full fledged psycho, I have pages and page and pages of very disturbing PMs he has sent me trying to change the definitions of “PROBABLY” and “ALMOST”. It’s really weird and certainly not normal.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 3 years ago

You obviously cannot handle a dialog that does not go where you want it to.

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

This imbecile seems to think he(?) can dictate what people can and can't discuss. Fuck him(?).

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 3 years ago

They're all the same. If they can't control the narrative, they don't wanna play. Because they don't know how.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 3 years ago

Let's say we all did, all at once. What next?

Next we convince all the governments of the world to reduce emissions,
rather than refusing to even accept the problem exists because "it wont work unless we all do it"
Thats what these world leader Gxx conferences are about.

It worked with Ozone layer , that wasnt just some made up shit that went out of fashion.
It was a real global problem requiring a culture change in product manufacturing the world over.
And it happened.
Admittedly the solution was easier than the current problem.

reply

[–] CraigC (8825) 3 years ago

Do you really think China cares? Do you really think 3rd world countries have the resources to do what we've done?

No. We have to proceed as we've already done, carefully measured without making stupid and expensive mistakes (like wind turbines), trying to satisfy this hysterical idea that we're nearing the end of the world. As fools like AOC suggest.

We also need some common sense applied to things like electric vehicles. Not only their manufacture but the source of the energy used to supply them. Not to mention this idea that everybody can run out and buy one.

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

What's a massive lie is that you work for Leonardo DiCaprio. You have no credibility.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

you really took a single joke I made once seriously? sir please stay off of here for your own blood pressure

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

You in no way were joking. It was said in all seriousness and you hoped people were gullible enough to buy such a ridiculous lie. Now, in typical leftists fashion, you say it was a joke. You're the joke.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

you thought " I work for Leonardo Dicaprio himself! he wants to know what normal people are like online. ill have to report to him one of my first encounters has not been pleasant"

was a serious comment? you actually thought that was a real comment? sir. stay off the internet until further notice and you can be trained how to deal with it. This is not a good environment for you

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

Nice try, loser.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

for the third time. i want to reiterate.

you, a grown ass adult. who claims to have some modicum of at least average intelligence. thought the comment " I work for Leonardo Dicaprio himself! he wants to know what normal people are like online. ill have to report to him one of my first encounters has not been pleasant"

was a REAL comment? You, a fully developed human being, with gray matter, thought someone would seriously post they are Leonardo dicaprios internet liaison checking in on the average folk of the internet to see what they say about him?

I want to laugh it is truly hilarious! but I always have to question if you are suffering some serious degenerative issue of the mind. I am not being facetious. You seem to lack focus and think comments like that were meant to be taken seriously

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

You can reiterate all you want. You're liar and you're not fooling anyone.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

for the fourth time.

you sir. a person who has finished at least high school. and tries to debate complex topics with others on here. Who wants to be treated as an adult and not a brain dead dullard.

Actually thought. That someone would be serious and claim to be Leonardos internet scout searching for opinions form the "common man" to relay back to him?

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

Say it as many times as you want. You're a liar and you're not fooling anyone.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

sir I shall ensure I save this interaction and bring it up every chance I can! this is quite possibly the most ignominious comment I have ever seen by an individual!

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

I don't advise it. You'll just make yourself look MORE like the foolish liar you are.

P.S. Why do you call everyone "sir" when you don't know their gender? Sexist.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

I will look like a fool. because you took seriously one funny comment about being Leonardo's internet liaison.

yes I am sure that is the impression others will get. I am the fool..... this is why seniors without proper training should not be on the internet!

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true.

P.S. True to LeoDicaprio form, you didn't answer the question.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

even on a topic so specific, it is about one line I said, you can't help but topic change.. there is no hope for you grandpa.

you should start a new topic! "am I Dullard because I took serials;y someone saying they were Leonardo dicaprios public liaison"

of course everyone will agree with you! so go ahead sir!

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

You sure make a lot of assumptions. You know what they say about assuming. Pull your leftist head out of DiCaprio's ass and seek out reality.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

make the post! I will enjoy seeing your public dismantling!

you are essentially a clown, we may as well get some entertainment from you!

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

You're an imbecile and not even entertaining.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

aw you are scared of the public ridicule. I get it. You don't have the courage to ever admit you are wrong. Hence why you are weak and couldn't make the post and deal with the shame!

enjoy your day grandpa. I am sure you shit yourself in a fit of rage reading my posts

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

HAHAHAHAHA!! Don't flatter yourself. You are nothing but a lying cigarette butt, to me and I'm getting bored with your mindless drivel so PLEASE, have the last word and dazzle everyone with your brilliance. Enjoy welfare.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

im heading to work later. do you remember work grandpa? or have those memories faded too along with what little intellect you ever possesed.

the coward can't post the topic!

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

I found it! im going to make a new spot about Mc's newest dumbest comment. so glad I found this gem :p

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

Yep. You exposed your lie. Saying you were kidding (long after the fact) doesn't convince anyone.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

I didnt have to say I was kidding immediately after the comment because to anyone not a retard its obvious. this was the first time somone said "no you were serious!!!" so yes it would be "long after" because this is the first time someone was so fucking stupid they claimed I meant it seriously. owned again. and again. and again.

im so exposed I made a literal post about it in politics, and then commented here and bumped it to the top lol. ohhhhhhh nooo I didnt want this 'exposure". im exposed!!!

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

The more you try to explain your lie, the more desperate and pathetic you look. Man up, already.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

thats why I posted a whole topic about it for everyone to see lol. im glad everyone will see you are a retard

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

Why you did it is obvious.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

respond to it. I posted it :) name yourself clown hhahhahahahah

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

Clinging on in desperation. Keep going.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

how am I "clinging".

or exposed??

im shouting it from the rooftops of MC to embarrass you hahahahahah. why haven't you commented on it yet bitch haha

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

Oh my, you're ridiculous! Shouting from the rooftops (like a sad, pathetic child) in a desperate attempt to backpedal your lie. You're not fooling anyone!

I was kidding!!! Waaaa!! Please believe me! Waaa. Imma tell my mommy!!!! Waaaa!

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

yess im backpedaling... by putting up to the scrutiny of the entire site, lol.

yes I am "Leonardo dicarprios assistant" is a joke.... wow man have you been tested before?

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

And how, pray tell is that a joke? It wasn't said in a joking or even relevant context. It was an assertion made in a serious tone.There was nothing to suggest humor. There was nothing remotely humorous about it. No punch line, no nothing, but you already know all of this.

You were lying then and you're lying now. You know it. I know it and everyone else knows it.

Like I said, you're a lying joke. Delete your account.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

yes it was. what's a joking "context". the hoke is the joke itself clown. that somone would claim to be "Leonardos assistant on MC finding out what normal people say about him".

its soo patently absurd, you would have to be a literal RETARD to believe its serious.

ummm tone? in text? are you fucking retarded?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you re exhibit A or why roe vs wade should have stayed in place

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

Keep digging your hole.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

in other words "he disproved my nonsense. im soooo fucking dumb I said that text has tone. I actually thought somone was seriously claiming to be Leos assistant of a single joke comment"

get tested for real. shame roe wasnt enforced on low iq people like you

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

We all know the truth. I'm bored with you so please, have the last word and dig your hole a little deeper.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

the pile up is beginning over there.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/62e02519a0590a6ac41c651b/MCs-actual-dumbest-comments

your cuckservative buddies wont even touch it to defend you LOL. even they sense the retardation of your comment LOL

reply

[–] chilone (18324) 3 years ago

That's some 'pile up', junior.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

get over there. I want you to expose yourself as the clown LOLL. and say to everyone "yes I am so fucking stupid I actually though that was a serious comment"

pleaseee comment

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/62e02519a0590a6ac41c651b/MCs-actual-dumbest-comments

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

Pluto wasnt a planet, then it was a planet, now its not a planet again. wish those scientists would make up their minds.

doctors used to endorse smoking
lead and asbestos used to be in almost everything
we used to spray DDT in neighborhoods and kids would play in the smoke
cars didnt have seat belts, then a lap belt then a 3 point belt, now cars have air bags
kids used to play with liquid mercury.
wear one mask, then it was 2 masks

yeah, scientists are super smart.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

"Pluto wasnt a planet, then it was a planet, now its not a planet again. wish those scientists would make up their minds."

"The International Astronomical Union (IAU) downgraded the status of Pluto to that of a dwarf planet because it did not meet the three criteria the IAU uses to define a full-sized planet. Essentially Pluto meets all the criteria except one—it “has not cleared its neighboring region of other objects.”

how they categorize planets means there can't possibly be studies and evidence off global warming? I am truly astounding by your dull-witted comment sir.

yes rules came in place to stop allowing corporations to buy and spread lies. and what happened? more science and studies came out!!

scientists are why you can drive to work, why your house is heated in the winter, why you are typing on a computer. why you didn't get measles and small pox, and why pre 1900 25/1000 births led to the child dying.

yes they are smart. science grows and builds on science. Almost every single modern comfort and advancement is either due to them, or the scientific method they employ

you sir are a dullard.

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

shouldnt they have known it wasnt a planet in the first place?

what I have learned is that there are liberal scientists and regular scientists, liberals will pay scientists to endorse something, whether its true or not.

global warming was solved years ago, we are now fighting climate change.

if scientists are so smart why did it take them so long to find a cure for measles and small pox?

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

you think Jesus hands scientists a list of categorizations that are objective universal truths?

categorizations are man made. depending how broad or strict it is it may or may not include Pluto. they decided Pluto was a dwarf planet because it

researchers had to ask themselves these questions: If Pluto was a planet, then did that mean Eris was one as well? What about all those other icy objects out in the Kuiper belt? Where exactly was the cut-off line for classifying a body as a planet? A word that had seemed straightforward and simple was suddenly shown to be oddly slippery.

Intense debate followed, with many new proposals for the definition of planet being offered

liberal scientists? so 99% of peppers and academias are all in the liberal conspiracy?

"global warming was solved years ago, we are now fighting climate change."

no, they just found climate change was a more accurate descriptor. as while the earth is warming overall, it is massively changing the climate.

"if scientists are so smart why did it take them so long to find a cure for measles and small pox?"

ohhhhhhhhh. you are a troll! to think I wasted time writing the stuff before this. enjoy trying to get attention elsewhere!

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

just saying that scientists change their minds based on facts and truths, sometimes this can take years or centuries to figure out. the scientists in 2122 will look back into the past and think we all were idiots for what we believed in.

science is ever changing, this is a fact.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

beg others to talk to you troll!

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

did u go to work yet?

reply

[–] robocat893 (16256) 3 years ago

The good thing about Science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe in it. - Neil deGrasse Tyson

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

the science many years ago said that sun revolved around the earth, guess thats still true? lol

reply

[–] robocat893 (16256) 3 years ago

Then science proved the Earth revolves around the Sun. That's how it works.

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

exactly, the science changed. we grow and learn year after year and century after century.

Neil is just a man, like you and I, he is not infallible.

reply

[–] robocat893 (16256) 3 years ago

I can't believe we actually agree with something.

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

haha, yeah, its a first!

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

no the science did not.. people observed it. it may have been our best guess but the science didnt say that. random people in tribes or jews in Jerusalem or Persians seeing the sun and thinking it was the centre of the universe and it revolved around the sun doesnt make it "science"

religious institutions would not allow and constantly oppressed the science that contradicted their dogma.

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

if its not science, then what is it?

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

a person seeing something and believing something doesnt make it science.

just like people observing lighting thinking its Zeus isnt science.

you dullwitt

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

how come when it rains, droplets fall from the sky, how come the clouds just dont release all their water at once?

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

are you having a seizure? I love the complete topic change when called out on your lack of understanding of what science is. I will take that as conceding

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

can science explain that?
Curie accidentally killed herself with radiation, certainly science should have prevented that.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

.................. are you fucking stupid.... for real im not being mean. go get checked out for a possible mental deficiency or delay

"he damaging effects of ionising radiation were not known at the time of her work, which had been carried out without the safety measures later developed.[74] She had carried test tubes containing radioactive isotopes in her pocket,[76] and she stored them in her desk drawer, remarking on the faint light that the substances gave off in the dark.[77] Curie was also exposed to X-rays from unshielded equipment while serving as a radiologist in field hospitals during the war.[60] In fact, when Curie's body was exhumed in 1995, the French Office de Protection contre les Rayonnements Ionisants (ORPI) "concluded that she could not have been exposed to lethal levels of radium while she was alive". They pointed out that radium poses a risk only if it is ingested,[78] and speculated that her illness was more likely to have been due to her use of radiography during the First World War.[79]"

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

yeah, it was an accident. she didnt know what radiation was even though she was a scientist. science is ever changing my friend. 50 years from now, the science will change again.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

and? your point made no fucking sense. yes science finds more and more new information and makes tentative positions on the best available evidence. she didn't know of the dangers now we do? so fucking what? we cannot know what we did not know. science "couldn't have prevented that" (whatever the fuck that means) if we didn't know the dangers. again are you delayed?

by your logic we cannot tentatively believe any science because "50 years from now, the science will change again." this is a nonsense statement exposes you are an idiot.

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

just saying that science changes, but we just accept what the current and present scientists tell us. Dr. Faucinstein said 2 weeks to stop the spread, then masks werent needed, then wear one mask, then wear 2 masks and 3 would be better, then get 2 shots, then get a booster and then get another booster just to be safe. and people wonder why we dont trust doctors and scientists.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

ya so fucking what? yes we accept it BECAUSE its based on the best available evidence and studies. when more comes out that MAY change.

HAHAHAHAH the sad little dull wit is now onto his next script! the dull wit was exposed as an idiot again and now falling back to "but Fauci!!!!!! vaccines and masks!!"

you are dumb, plain and simple

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

thats what we both just said, science changes...

not dumb, just explain things in a different way. most people dont understand my analogies or comparisons.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

yes science can change based on new evidence

THAT DOESN'T MEAN we can't trust doctors and scientists. I am sorry you re here spreading nonsense. try again!

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

yes, science changes...

doctors in the 50's used to endorse smoking. doctors today will just endorse whatever makes them money. ie oxy...

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

you are an idiot man. your false equivalence is truly hilarious!

this is what happens when your educational endeavours ended at high school! stay dumb and an embarrassment on this board

20k studies in the last 2 years showing man made climate change is real

24 saying it isn't...or 0.0012%

its all a conspiracy man.. yaa thats it. you drink that koolaid and made sure the tin foil hats on tight so the deep state lizards cant ready your thoughts ;)

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

yeah, the science changed and now we know that smoking kills people. but its still sold at stores. someday we will find out that vaping is just as bad, but for now, everyone thinks its healthy, just like in the 50's.

whats the plan to stop man made climate change?

whats Russia doing to stop climate change? they used to be a part of the G20 after all.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

yes knowing products are bad and sold at stores has NOTHING to do with climate change science retard.

again stop changing the subject. admit your are wrong. You don't understand the science. you are conflating two unrelated things.man up. it will only sting slightly

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

just saying that science changes, scientists in 2062 will be smarter than the scientists today. climate change is dumb and it needs to be stopped.

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

summer is hot, winter is cold. we must stop climate change!

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

hahahah you are begging my attention. what a fucking loser.

"OMG you didnt respond 6 months ago!!! pay attention to me"

your life is garbage

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 3 years ago

Because conservatives are mostly white and are the ones that have to pay all the bills for these junk ideas.

reply

[–] Phids (787) 3 years ago

What conservatives don't accept is the political science.

The left has learned that so long as it masquerades its political science by the facade of science, it can push its ideology onto the world. Conservatives see through this, and they reject it.

I clear example of this occurred in early summer 2020. The country was under lockdown due to COVID restrictions, many of which were pushed by the left. Lo and behold, mass protests and riots emerge in the aftermath of George Floyd's death. Did "the science" call out and condemn these mass gatherings because they were liable to spread COVID?

No. Instead, the opposite occurred. These "scientists" actually claimed that protesting was a "public health" issue and that the protesting was ok.

This kind of absurdity was all the proof we needed to know that "scientists" are willing to elevate leftist ideology over science.

reply

[–] bwbphile (474) 3 years ago

Well said.

reply

[–] JoWilli (21635) 3 years ago

agreed...

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

I do believe that you won this argument. However, you'll get the usual reply's from the guy who started this thread. I don't have to paraphrase them, this thread, and his comment history are littered with them.

And here's a link to list of 500 scientists who refute climate change.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

You asked to hear from one scientist who refuted climate change- I just provided you with a link of 500.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11532) 3 years ago

My guess is there will be no reply. Guys like this cherry pick.

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

He could be a troll. Some of them are quite funny. Sometimes you'll think someone is trolling because they are so out there, but sometimes those maniacs aren't trolling- which is really scary.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 3 years ago

... oooh, scary ...

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

Yeah, it's scary because they just parrot whatever their favorite news station tells them. It's just like people who trust late night "comedic" talk show hosts. Those people are equally scary.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

thank you for an actual link and real response. I will looking into it

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

here is from your own link

"a group of 500 prominent scientists and PROFESSIONALS, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent this registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General "

I bolded the word professionals clearly. It could mean 2 scientists and 498 professionals signed this letter. and why should I care what those who arent experts and studied the topic think? so I looked into it because I cant know I am making an assumption.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/letter-to-un-was-not-signed-by-500-experts-on-climate-science-breitbart/

Ten fact-checking organizations, including Climate Feedback, reviewed the credentials of a little over 200 of the signatories but could only confirm that 2 had published research in atmospheric or climate science, which means at least 200 of the 500 are not scientists with relevant expertise. And by our count, more of the signatories are math professors, business executives, economists, engineering professors, medical professionals, or individuals primarily engaged in advocacy than individuals who have published in atmospheric or climate science.

The largest single group of signers—approximately 60 of the 200 we reviewed from the US, Canada, Brazil, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, France, and Germany—includes academics in the physical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, or geology. However, we could not confirm that any have published research relevant to climate change, so they are making a point outside their domain of expertise—as if a geologist made authoritative comments about your health that are contradicted by scientific research.

Of the 200 signers we checked, 40% are retired or professors emeritus, indicating they are not actively involved in scientific research and may not be up to date on the latest findings.

The affiliations of several of the signers are misleading. For example, Professor Waheed Uddin is listed as an “expert in climate modeling” and “former advisor UN”. However, a public profile of Prof. Uddin describes him as “previously a pavement expert for the United Nations”. At least two signers list themselves as an “IPCC Expert Reviewer”, but this title can be claimed by any member of the public who signs up to receive drafts of IPCC report chapters and submits comments.

German fact-checker Correctiv discovered several individuals listed as professors whose titles could not be verified.

in the end the fact checker could only establish 10 signatures having degrees in climate science and meterology.

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

So you got 10 times what you asked for?

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

no that is not how basic science works..... I am truly shocked and amazed you said something so incredibly dull-witted

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

You're the one who said you got 10 when you only wanted 1....

But you will likely disagree with them anyway because you're clearly only interested in confirmation bias.

Also:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
https://insightplus.mja.com.au/2020/48/i-published-a-fake-paper-in-a-peer-reviewed-journal/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8216989/

LOL

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

I didnt get 10X when I wanted more. I said provide legitimate scientific and academic institutions.

an open letter was provided. which pretty much now actual scientists, let alone climatologists.

again tell me you dont understand science without telling me you dont understand science.

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

Please a 2yr okd has a better grasp of legitimate scientific methods than you do.

You're just a bandwagoner, you couldn't make an informed decision with all the evidence in the world on a table in front of you. Your strategy is to go along with your political ideology and nothing more.

Why aren't you abandoning all modern comforts that are ruining the planet eh?

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

-no studies provided
-not a single study was done by this group
-its an open letter by mostly non scientists, or scientists in non related field to climatology

yes im also a bangwagonwer on gravity, evolution and germ theory. Because thats what the scientific consensus is.

Apparently basically all the research and all the scientists doing studies in the relevant fields and all the scientists are just part of the left wing conspiracy. why? because you do not like their findings.

what a dullwitt

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

and no reply.... classic

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

Do you think that I sleep next to this freaking thing and am anxiously awaiting your reply. I'll check out what you posted when i have time, but it's after 1 AM where I live and I need sleep. Here's something that you can learn in the meantime -patience. It appears that the children in my first grade classroom have more of it than you do.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

Well I am amazed your parents let a first grader stay up so late and comment on movie chat. But that is no excuse

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

The problem with the link you sent me is that it only lists two names out of the 500 signers, then it just states that most of them are in other fields. How do I know if this is true? Do I just believe a website that pushes the climate change narrative. I need more proof than that. I need a non-biased website to go through the signers, and provide me with information about them. Your link did not do that.

Here's another link to 126 scientists who refute climate change.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists

And since your command of the English vernacular is stunted I will help explain my profession to you. I teach first grade. The first graders that I teach (who are between the ages of 5-6) have more patience than you do.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

"the climate change narrative"

there is no hope for you...

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

I'm not a climate change denier. I think that it would be impossible to have a global population as large as the one that we have, and it wouldn't cause some kind of change. However, the change isn't as drastic as they make it out to be. According to the Al Gore movie, the earth should be uninhabitable by now due to the ice caps melting (according to him was going to happen in 2013) and we all should have been dead years ago. The climate change that the media are pushing is simply a form of control over us. It's what evil political figures, and evil religious figures all through history have done in order to gain power, and control the masses. Recently they used Covid-19 which has a 99.98% survival rate to do just that.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

hahahhahahahahahha the dullwitt thinks al gores movies is science and what he scientific community believes.

stop dullwitt. you keep exposing more and more stupidity

ohh and a covid idiot too!

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

It seems as if you cannot have a conversation with anyone without insulting them by calling them names. I guess that you consider that an indication of your superior mind?

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

if you reference AL gore for your information on what the scientific community says about climate change, you are a dull wit.

there is no sugar coating it. that is just a fact

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

why is it you can only find 126 scientists. and I can find 250 academic and scientific institutions representing millions.

why is it they publish "open letters" and "signed statements".

but aren't actually publishing studies and their findings that can be peer reviewed!

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

Actually, I have provided you with combined lists of 626 scientists, and academic professions who refute climate change, but it doesn't fit your narrative so you simply dismiss it. Or you send me a link that dismisses it, but only two names that signed the list are mentioned on that site. Also, that site's is devoted to pushing the climate change agenda. No matter what the people working at that site were presented with, they would refute it.

And if you want to search for peer reviewed papers that refute climate change then the following website has a catalog of them.

https://skepticalscience.com/resources.php

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Whitehouse-GT_Standstill.pdf

https://skepticalscience.com/database-of-peer-reviewed-papers-on-climate-change.html

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

just stop with this nonsense.

yes the 500+ the 126 is 626.

we went over this. the 500 are nonsense. only 10 have relevant degrees.

stop this stupidity

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

Well, initially you asked for just one. Now you have 10 that you approve of, and you didn't even look at the additional links that I provided. So, I guess that I can stop with the stupidity of trying to have a logical conversation with you.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

no I didnt. I asked for "I am currently waiting for conservative to provide me with one scientific institution"

10 people who sign an open letter are not a scientific institution.

I know reading may be a chore for you sir. but do try harder

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 3 years ago

If this is the same list that gets passed around by science deniers all the time, it's just a bunch of random people. You don't go to the dentist if you have a heart attack, and you don't go to a dentist, engineer, biologist, or Joe at the Quicky-mart for climate science. Get a clue.

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

Okay flat Earther.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 3 years ago

oof, you really suck at insults, and at critical thinking.

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

If you say so genius.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

political science isnt a hard science.... and no they did not. if individual politicians supported them protesting, this has NOTHING to do with virology, our understanding of its spread ect. Sir please get a basic education before commenting again.

reply

[–] Phids (787) 3 years ago

You're correct that what leftist scientists have done "has NOTHING to do with virology, our understanding of its spread...". This is precisely the point. Far too many scientists have given up on actual science and its quest for truth and have instead taken up activism which guides their findings. Strangely, they still get paid scientists' salaries.

The mask is off, and we can all see them for who they are. Why can't you?

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

your post still made no damn sense. you are alluding to vague leftwing "political science". which you cant even get the term right. that would be politicized science. political science is already a well established branch...

no far too many scientists haven't given up. you just do not like their findings, and that upsets you. they are doing real science, studying the virus RNA, doing studies, doing tests. but their conclusions trigger you.

"we can all see it"..

no your fringe conspiracy group are not important at are jokes. I dont care what you see

reply

[–] Phids (787) 3 years ago

I was using a "play on words", but I explained it elsewhere when I discussed how those on the left often let their ideological framework guide their scientific research and findings. I already showed how how this was the case when "scientists" ridiculously claimed that protesting after George Floyd's death was more important than remaining locked down.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

again more nonsense ranting

reply

[–] Phids (787) 3 years ago

Nope, just telling you the truth. When you're done trolling, just let me know.

reply

[–] Solastine (1104) 3 years ago

Conservativitius requires a person to have braindamage and be incapable of logical thought.

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

Thank you for adding your brilliance to this conversation. We are all the better because of it.

reply

[–] Solastine (1104) 3 years ago

Coonservativitus is a form of brain damage, the first step to getting better is admitting you have a a problem.

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

Again, thank you. Your 140 point IQ is in full effect. We'd all be lost without your brilliance.

reply

[–] Solastine (1104) 3 years ago

I am a stable genius

reply

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2490) 3 years ago

Indeed you are.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17829) 3 years ago

37 genders.

reply