• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When Does Denial Become Fraud?

Longview,

You present a very solid argument.
When the opposition has been decimated to the point they have nothing left other than condescension, you have utterly destroyed their fraudulent misguided assertions.

Well done.
 
longview said:
No conspiracy, most researchers just want to keep winning grants,
The vast majority of NSF RFP's carry the assumption that AGW science is settled,
when science is never really settled.
We really do not have a complete understanding of CO2 in our atmospheric system.
Think of the deficiencies?
Why has the diurnal asymmetry not decreased, Hansen said it would, in 1995.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

Here we are 21 years later, and the ratio of Tmin to Tmax is about the same.
How about seasonal asymmetry, where most of the warming occurs in the cooler months?
Any quick interpretation why CO2 would choose to exhibit most of it's insulation qualities,
when the delta temperature between earth and space are lower?
View attachment 67200917

There is much we do not know about how CO2 works in our atmosphere,
Why has our government chosen to stop asking questions about it?
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. It's a conspiracy at the NSF.

And it's funny how in one post you talk about papers that have lower co2 sensitivities, and in the next you claim those studies aren't being funded.

But then again, that's what conspiracy theorists do (but it's not a conspiracy! It's just a librul groupthink!)
 
Threegoofs said:
Ah, yes. It's a conspiracy at the NSF.

And it's funny how in one post you talk about papers that have lower co2 sensitivities, and in the next you claim those studies aren't being funded.

But then again, that's what conspiracy theorists do (but it's not a conspiracy! It's just a librul groupthink!)
Click to expand...
Not all papers are a result of funding, but it does help.
Again you miss the point, no surprise!
There are still open questions about CO2 in our atmosphere, the answers to those questions
could ether enforce or minimize the concept known as AGW.
Science is about questioning why something is the way it is,
The Science is not settled, yet not only are they not funding the asking of the questions,
they are actively ostracizing any who even question the dogma.
 
LowDown said:
https://ricochet.com/when-does-denial-become-fraud/


Here’s a list provided by the author of beliefs in descending levels of dissent:

  1. Global warming is a complete hoax;
  2. The planet is warming, but due to natural causes;
  3. Human activity contributes to global warming, but is not the primary driver;
  4. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but the consequences are not catastrophic;
  5. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but there is nothing we can do to stop it;
  6. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but adaptation is more economical than trying to stop it;
  7. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming and there may be something we can do to stop it, but we don’t yet know what that is; and
  8. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming but, we don’t know yet how to stop it and, until we do know, we shouldn’t implement “solutions” that might only make things worse

Which of these statements constitutes the minimum standard for fraud?

For those interested, my level of dissent is approximately level 3 to 4, but it tends to fluctuate depending on the specific argument.
Click to expand...

Denial becomes fraud when the people who are pushing denial are on the payroll of certain companies who are paying the deniers to push pseudoscience.
 
Kobie said:
Denial becomes fraud when the people who are pushing denial are on the payroll of certain companies who are paying the deniers to push pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
Actually Fraud has a legal definition,
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved
five separate elements:
(1) a false statement of a material fact,
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and
(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
Click to expand...
It is a good thing that our society set the bar high for such charges.
 
Global warming fraud is fed by grant money and the prospects of my taxes going to some hellholes in Africa as reparations because we burn more.

Remove the money, and this global fraud will go away like a fart after the window is opened.
 
It's pathetic and disgusting that liberals would even pursue this nonsense, but then again, the end justify the means, right?
 
longview said:
Not all papers are a result of funding, but it does help.
Again you miss the point, no surprise!
There are still open questions about CO2 in our atmosphere, the answers to those questions
could ether enforce or minimize the concept known as AGW.
Science is about questioning why something is the way it is,
The Science is not settled, yet not only are they not funding the asking of the questions,
they are actively ostracizing any who even question the dogma.
Click to expand...

Yet somehow papers get published (according to you) that question the dogma.

Sounds like your conspir...errr librul groupthink concept doesnt hold water.
 
legalimmigrant said:
Global warming fraud is fed by grant money and the prospects of my taxes going to some hellholes in Africa as reparations because we burn more.

Remove the money, and this global fraud will go away like a fart after the window is opened.
Click to expand...

Yes. It's a conspiracy. A giant, global one that all scientists are in on.
 
KLATTU said:
It's pathetic and disgusting that liberals would even pursue this nonsense, but then again, the end justify the means, right?
Click to expand...

...that the Liberal-in-Chief tells us that global warming poses a greater danger than anything else, including 22 trillion in debt or ISIS.

I have a better idea - well maybe not better but just as insane - : let's spend 1 gadzillion dollars to reverse the flow El Nino. To prove that it would be good for us, I would like to get a million-dollar grant to study the subject and design the machines to accomplish this very noble idea. Anyone who is against me putting my sweaty hands on the dough will be labelled as a denier and prosecuted.

Am I a genius or what?
 
LowDown said:
Your reply is full of falsehoods. Conservatives don't "naturally" resist science and facts anymore than anyone else, like liberal anti-vaxxers and any liberal who believes half of the claims made for products sold at Whole Foods. Conservative genuinely believe the things they assert about climate science for the most part, and not all of them are skeptical of it. Far from it. Some Republicans are beside themselves with alarmist hysteria.

None of the claims made by climate science are undeniably proven. It might be a lot of fun seeing liberal prosecutors trying to prove fraud. I'm guessing they have enough sense not to try it even if they huff and puff about it now.
Click to expand...

This "undeniable proof" you are looking for will mean it is too late to do anything about it since the damage will be done. That does not bother you at all? Even if the worst of the predictions come true you will be content that you did the right thing? You will tell your grandchildren that we just didn't have enough proof so we ignored the warnings and they should just deal with what we left them?
Conservatives DO resist anything Scientific or otherwise that might cost them a dollar and you know that. Conservative is just another word for skinflint and I don't even think most of them would disagree.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Thanks for revealing your thought process on this.
Click to expand...

I am just happily mocking your insinuation that if many scientific prostitutes agree, therefore, it must be true. My thought process is fine. In fact, it's better than most.

BTW, just for fun, let's agree that (1) there is such thing as global warming, (2) and that it is caused in part by human activity.

So, here are my questions:

(1) what percentage of GW is caused by human activity as opposed to volcanoes and cows farting?
(2) will there be any money transferred from the U.S. to other countries?
(3) what will the U.S. have to do to reverse GW?
(4) how much will it cost us?
(5) how much did the ocean level go up as a result if global warming caused by human activity?

Do these questions make me a denier and should I be prosecuted for fraud?
 
legalimmigrant said:
...that the Liberal-in-Chief tells us that global warming poses a greater danger than anything else, including 22 trillion in debt or ISIS.
t?
Click to expand...

He's told numerous whoopers about climate change.
Example:

"What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing—faster than was predicted even ten years ago.” -pause denier Barack Obama ,2012.

Is that fraud?
 
legalimmigrant said:
I am just happily mocking your insinuation that if many scientific prostitutes agree, therefore, it must be true. My thought process is fine. In fact, it's better than most.

BTW, just for fun, let's agree that (1) there is such thing as global warming, (2) and that it is caused in part by human activity.

So, here are my questions:

(1) what percentage of GW is caused by human activity as opposed to volcanoes and cows farting?
(2) will there be any money transferred from the U.S. to other countries?
(3) what will the U.S. have to do to reverse GW?
(4) how much will it cost us?
(5) how much did the ocean level go up as a result if global warming caused by human activity?

Do these questions make me a denier and should I be prosecuted for fraud?
Click to expand...

1) 80-110%, according to science
2) money will come to the US if we are at the new tech forefront. See Tesla.
3) there is no reversal, just attenuation. For mechanisms, see other threads.
4) it will cost less to prevent than to deal with, especially if done early.
5) use English please.

The questions don't make you a denier, they just broadcast your ignorance of the issue. And ignorance isn't fraud.
 
longview said:
The reason it is a bad analogy is chemistry.
A company can procure low sulfur fuels, or scrub Sulfur dioxide from the exhaust,
it is not a requirement in the hydrocarbon burning cycle, CO2 is part and parcel
of the combustion event.
Click to expand...

A company can also procure energy with lower CO2 emissions so the analogy stands.
 
Threegoofs said:
1) 80-110%, according to science
2) money will come to the US if we are at the new tech forefront. See Tesla.
3) there is no reversal, just attenuation. For mechanisms, see other threads.
4) it will cost less to prevent than to deal with, especially if done early.
5) use English please.

The questions don't make you a denier, they just broadcast your ignorance of the issue. And ignorance isn't fraud.
Click to expand...

1. Use basic math, please. A part cannot be greater than 100% of the whole piece.
2. BS. All that stuff will be made in China.
3. How much are you prepared to volunteer in additional taxes to "attenuate"?
4. Where did you pull this one from?
5. I pressed 'i" instead "o". Shame on me.

BTW, the proper form is: use English, please. See the comma?
 
legalimmigrant said:
1. Use basic math, please. A part cannot be greater than 100% of the whole piece.
2. BS. All that stuff will be made in China.
3. How much are you prepared to volunteer in additional taxes to "attenuate"?
4. Where did you pull this one from?
5. I pressed 'i" instead "o". Shame on me.

BTW, the proper form is: use English, please. See the comma?
Click to expand...

1) yeah, it can. It's science though- you wouldn't understand.

2) I haven't heard Tesla is moving to China, although I'm guessing Fusion will be coming from Europe, given the lack of interest from the US.

3) I'm wiling to pay now to save later. You?

4) Scientific literature and the IPCC report.

5) still makes no sense.
 
Threegoofs said:
1) yeah, it can. It's science though- you wouldn't understand.

2) I haven't heard Tesla is moving to China, although I'm guessing Fusion will be coming from Europe, given the lack of interest from the US.

3) I'm wiling to pay now to save later. You?

4) Scientific literature and the IPCC report.

5) still makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Are you a liberal?
 
Threegoofs said:
Not sure why that's relevant in matters of scientific fact at all.
Click to expand...

Over time I learned that liberals never answer questions directly. They evade, obfuscate, avoid, wiggle, play "what is is" games, etc. I noticed the same pattern in your posts. So, if you are a liberal this conversation is over. If not, I will be happy to continue and teach you were you are falling short.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom