Comments by "carcdg" (@callanc3925) on "NDT Gets Serious About Science Denial | Joe Rogan" video.

There is no issue because thats not what hes talking about. Also no one has ever come to a scientific conclusion of "Humans are causing catastrophic global warming." Thats the title of a buzzfeed article, not the conclusive statement of a scientific report.
4
jesus i hope this is a troll
2
@bulldawgirwin8384 dont know where youre meeting people that believe we rode dinosaurs, unless youre talking to kids outside an elementary school
2
It is science denial when more than 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activity. Tell me what youre thinking about so critically that you disagree with these experts.
1
@robiulahmed the climate change argument isnt about whether humans caused it, its about whether humans accelerated it, which there is much evidence supporting. the view of "american scientists" is irrelevent if they are not actively publishing climate scientist, not to mention youre saying numbers like 30,000 without saying how many american scientists there are in total (likely millions). Universities shutting down debates has nothing to do with this. Universities arent scientific entities, they can have their own agendas.
1
@robiulahmed itd be good to see some data that shows climate change is purely due to changing solar activity.
1
@robiulahmed There are more countries than just yours. In many countries (such as my own) the government funding on universities barely changes over time at all and yet we still agree with the climate change conclusions the rest of the world have come to. There is literally 0 evidence that the government are try extorting the universities into putting out fake reports, you just made that up. im from nz and no i dont have time for a public debate.
1
@robiulahmed Why the fuck would I ever care about this enough to debate some random person over skype. If you were trying to actually find the truth you wouldnt want to debate, so that immediately shows me you just want to show off how right you are.
1
@Gemini Jemini but the exercise would be good for her. After all I did just put in 90% of the collective effort of this coitus session, the least she could do is give me a helping hand during my moment of sweet release.
1
at least 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate warming over the past century is extremely likely due to human activity. Where did you get that 27% disagree. Also dont know what youre saying in 3, quantum physics is the most complete theory of matter that science has ever developed and if you could give an example of important claims made by climate scientists that have been proven inaccurate thatd be appreciated.
1
@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch can you give me a link to some of the debunking then because I genuinely havent seen any proof of such
1
@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch I wasnt bringing up the 97% because I think it means global warming is man made and people should believe them, I was bringing it up because you said 27% disagree. That also technically leaves you on the burden of proof as well as you quoted 27% disagree without citing a source before me (not saying I dont believe that, more out of principle). Either way, the reason I believe global warming to be accelerated by humans isnt because i saw "97% of scientists... etc," its because I've seen evidence that to me overall affirms it far more than it disproves it.
1
@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch Apologies, I mistook you for the op but my point still stands. I dont have the evidence because the evidence is my life experience, through which I have seen many pieces of evidence at different times with different biases and from all that evidence I've seen I've come to a very sound conclusion that humans are extremely likely to have significantly contributed to climate change over the past century or so. As I previously said I dont think its not warming without human intervention, just that human intervention is massively accelerating it. I generally dont like the idea of changing the climate of the entire world by a notable amount if it can be avoided tbh. No one has fully predicted what the effect of that will be and randomly changing aspects of it will in most cases not be very beneficial overall
1
@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch No, Ive just been exposed to enough climate research and data over my life that I dont need to spend all my spare time reaffirming my position. Also never claimed that this wasnt the case so I dont get why youre treating this as such a "gotcha" moment. Bold of you to call me blatantly dishonest given the only "dishonest" thing I said was quoting an incorrect figure after someone else quoted a figure with no source.
1
@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch Yeah this doesnt concern me at all because I trust myself more than I trust some random stranger on the internet. If one of my close friends were to say "ya know ive been looking into it and climate change doesnt look like a human problem to me" then I'd probably talk to them about it and look into it with them, because I have some remote reason to trust what they say. Im not "always trying to reaffirm my position" because ultimately my position hardly matters at all. I still am slowly reaffirming my position with everything I see and talk about but not purposely because thats not a valid use of my time. Again as I first said, I wasnt using that 97% as a point for my stance. I was using it because the op quoted a very different value that I hadnt heard and I had no reason to believe his value over mine. I dont really know what rebuttal or evidence against your point your looking for when you havent really made a point or provided any evidence to counter what ive stated is my opinion on the issue
1
take a 3 week old fetus outside the womb and see how alive it is
1
@stevemygoodman7809 Maybe the predictions have been wrong because people have actually been altering their behaviour. You are allowed to question them, but if all you have is "i dont believe you" meanwhile they are writing peer reviewed articles, you should probably shut up on the issue because you dont have anything to add. If you tell me the world is gonna end, I wont believe you. If you show me scientific evidence that indicates the world is going to end then I'll pay attention to you. Its not about believing people its about having something to back up what youre saying.
1
Nobody seems capable of telling you the truth? If you know everything youre being told is a lie then surely you must know what the truth is? Or at least have some proof that youre being lied to?
1
 @justincunningham5457 scientists dont lobby for anything, they can hardly get a grant for their work let alone afford to pay off politicians.
1
@Matlockization those are like, 2 completely separate and independent ideas my friend
1
@Matlockization you do realise that liberal ideological activists can exist in the arts while there is creativity in science right? In fact Id wager that the two dont affect each others existence in the slightest
1
@bulldawgirwin8384 The important difference is a large amount of people think there are more than 2 genders, whereas youd be somewhat hard pressed to find a group of people that think we rode dinosaurs
1
eugenics isnt really something you can disagree with on a scientific level. It is a thing that can be done all you can disagree about is the ethics, and ethics arent scientific. Global cooling was popular among media, among scientists it was literally just a possibility they were looking at and (because of science) concluded wasn't something to worry about.
1
gender dysphoria is a mental illness so i dont know what youre talking about
1
@JoseTorres-1431 Thats not true, gender nonconformity was removed from the list of mental illnesses because it is far less serious and a different condition to gender dysphoria
1
@iknowafatguy2680 You know greta thunberg is a 16 year old girl, not a scientist, right?
1
@BluEagl Would you not think that corporate lobbying in the government should be illegal? I, for one, would like a government to not make decisions based on how much money theyve been paid to make that decision, and that would mean locking up a lot of people who work for oil companies
1