Is the world being destroyed?

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

At what point did the organization's reports become unbelievable to you? Was there a report that relied on bad data or a researcher who published a mistaken conclusion? What soured you on the IPCC?

It was here:
https://able2know.org/topic/44061-850#post-4895195

That is when I stopped believing the alleged "science".

It wasn't just the fact that scientific journals are excluding data that doesn't fit a climate change narrative (although that alone would be bad enough). It was also the way that this sort of fraud is deemed to be perfectly acceptable by the rest of the scientific community.

Human-caused global warming may well be happening (and probably is), but I'm not going to accept fake science as evidence of it.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Actually, Oralloy... It has to do with your inability to understand what thaey are saying.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

That is incorrect. My objection is the fraud that they are committing.

I am not even listening to what they are saying.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Oralloy is demonstrating an interesting principle.

Oralloy doesn't like the science about climate change because it doesn't fit his ideological narrative. The scientific community says clearly that human created global warming is real. Oralloy suggests that the science community is committing a "fraud".

The political left doesn't like the science about GMOs (genetically modified food) because it doesn't fit their ideological narrative. So the political left does the same thing. They claim it is fraud, and that science is "in the pockets of big pharma".

Both the political left and the political right use the same trick to explain away science that doesn't fit their narrative.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Oralloy doesn't like the science about climate change because it doesn't fit his ideological narrative.

Come on now. I have enough people here lying about me already. I don't need you to start lying about me too.

What I don't like is that the supposed "science" is fraudulent.

maxdancona wrote:

Oralloy suggests that the science community is committing a "fraud".

No weasel words. I do not suggest. I outright accuse.

maxdancona wrote:

Both the political left and the political right use the same trick to explain away science that doesn't fit their narrative.

Fraud isn't real science. And it never will be.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Edgar, and Izzy and Hightor and Farmerman are just like you in this...

They don't like that the "supposed science is fraudulent" either. It is a clever trick to avoid the fact that science doesn't support your ideological narrative.

It is fraudulent because you say it is. You have no expertise. You haven't run the experiments yourself. You simply don't like what the science is saying.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

It is fraudulent because you say it is.

Wrong. It is fraudulent because the scientists have been caught committing fraud.

maxdancona wrote:

You have no expertise.

No expertise is necessary to know that fraudulent data is no good.

maxdancona wrote:

You simply don't like what the science is saying.

Wrong. I am not paying any attention to what the frauds are saying.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

No expertise is necessary to know that fraudulent data is no good.

But apparently expertise is necessary to know that good data is not fraudulent?

I believed that masks were an ineffective gimmick. Then I was presented with evidence, scientific evidence, that contradicted this narrative. So I changed my mind.

There are three things you can do with you are presented with scientific evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

1. You can change your beliefs.
2. You can ignore the evidence is stay with your preexisting belief.
3. You can declare the science to be fraudulent.

There is a real problem with declaring institutional science to be "fraudulent" (and I write this for both Oralloy and Hightor). If you reject the findings of the scientific community you can reject anything.

If you declare any fact that challenges your beliefs to be "fraudulent" then science will never challenge your beliefs. That makes science meaningless. You will just keep on believing what you want to believe anyway.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Edgar, and Izzy and Hightor and Farmerman are just like you in this...

Um, leave the rest of us out of your argument with this character.

And I challenge you to show where I've ever said the "supposed science is fraudulent". I've explained to you several times that my opposition to GMOs is based on the particular way they are employed, not that they themselves represent a risk to human health. You're simply lying to support your own tiresome "ideological narrative". FFS, can't you go a day without harping on that same stupid message? We've all heard it enough.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

But apparently expertise is necessary to know that good data is not fraudulent?

There isn't any good data regarding climate change.

maxdancona wrote:

There is a real problem with declaring institutional science to be "fraudulent" (and I write this for both Oralloy and Hightor). If you reject the findings of the scientific community you can reject anything.

It is a problem only for the fraudsters who want to fool me with bogus data.

maxdancona wrote:

If you declare any fact that challenges your beliefs to be "fraudulent" then science will never challenge your beliefs.

I don't do this, so no problem.

I only refer to fraudulent data as fraudulent.

maxdancona wrote:

That makes science meaningless.

What makes science meaningless is scientific fraud.

maxdancona wrote:

You will just keep on believing what you want to believe anyway.

I prefer to believe the truth.

For some reason I've just always been partial to reality.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Max is just like Oralloy, same selfish attitude, lack of humanity and limited vocabulary.

Birds of a feather.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

You are lying about both of us. Neither of us have a limited vocabulary.

Would-be bullies often whine that I am inhumane to them. Such is life.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Hightor,

Do you belive that the science on the safety of GMOs is fraudulant necause it is being "manipuled by 'Big Pharma'"? This conspiracy theory from the political left is the same as Oralloy's conspiracy theory; a way to avoid a contradicton in their world view.

If you weren't part of the group pushing this conspiracy theory, then I will retract you from this with my apologies.

Please tell me if this is the case.

2 Replies

I don't want to get the thread locked and so will refrain from addressing the scurrilous words I've been reading.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

there are entire sequences of GMO's that dont involve mere insertion of like genes. There are sides that insert Bt genes and spider genes and hosts -on-genes for chemicals. These GMO's are inherently o the plants and animals. Id be careful a to which one max nd tor speak of. Unless I mised something

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Of course I don't believe that. I've never said anything like that, and again, you're simply making assumptions – "Oh, this guy criticizes capitalism, he must subscribe to far left conspiracy theories" – and putting words in my mouth.

I just told you, a few posts ago:

I wrote:

I've explained to you several times that my opposition to GMOs is based on the particular way they are employed, not that they themselves represent a risk to human health.

And it would be pretty stupid for anyone, left or right, to assign "Big Pharma" with a role in GMO-driven industrial farming. Monsanto, which developed "Round-Up", worked in biochemicals and agrochemicals, not pharmaceuticals.

Quote:

If you weren't part of the group pushing this conspiracy theory, then I will retract you from this with my apologies.

Don't bother. Try commenting on the topics raised in this thread instead of insulting other people who post here.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Putting words in other people’s mouths is the only way Max can have a debate.

He’s incapable of addressing any issue on its merits alone, he muddies the water by going on about political ideology, (which everybody mindlessly repeats except him.)

Bollocks, he’s one of the biggest ideologues on A2K.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

OK Terry.

1 Reply

I think a miracle has happened (although I may be misremembering). Let's remember what the science says.

Quote:

"The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: Consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM (genetically modified) crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques," according to the AAAS.

So we all agree with this now? If you all are with me on this one now... I think we are making progress.

My whole point here is that if you claim you are "science-based" then you need to accept the science even when it contradicts your personal ideological narrative. If you are doing that (rather than making up conspiracy theories) than you have my respect.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

It's not even legal to plant that stuff in parts of the world. They'll tell you anything to control the world's food production. So screw that stuff.

1 Reply

Is the world being destroyed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know