To the domed stadiums you mean... (see, this is a troll)
....a troll and cross thread stalker... hmmmm...lol
Are all Climate crisis deniers conspiracy theorists?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
....a troll and cross thread stalker... hmmmm...lol
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Cross thread references intensify the humor. Read your "Theory of Humor" book.
Yeah I thought it was funny, but others need a link to know what the F you are talking about...
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
That's appropriate for this forum. I don't know what the "F" most people are talking about due to their ridiculous way of writing and I've just read their post...
capitalist corporatist hegemony
countrys serf vassal proletariat undercurrent
driving the id ego infrastructure
but these are just my musing...
Perhaps you could read up on humor and find out the golden rule of not having to explain a joke...
Perhaps you could explain the humor of your post about domed stadiums
wow .. .that's a doozy... for someone that is musing even... lol
but ...
Showing respect for the thread that you are posting in might be more appropriate...
Are all Climate crisis deniers conspiracy theorists?
Maybe you should lobby the site admin for a chat thread and take it there....hmmm...
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
agree
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
You site the rule about not explaining a joke and then ask me to explain a joke...odd?
I show respect where it is earned. Respect is generally not earned on this forum.
Lol
If all you have is unexplained sarcasm for humor then maybe you could take a look at your own self respect issues...
Seriously, why would any one care about how you feel about other peoples attempts at communicating?
Granted it is a tad cryptic but it actually makes sense if you get past the formatting... color coded font is terrible admittedly...
try:
A country's serf vassal proletariat, undercurrent, driving the id ego devoted infrastructure...
but these are just my musing
Last edited:
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
It would still make no sense. It's just word salad. I just made it up.
I'm not making fun of someone whose first language is not English and therefore they make mistakes. I do assume that, in this case, the first language isn't English but they are capable of communicating better than that. What they are saying is just nonsense, making up words and phrases, etc.
Would the humor work better for you if I ended with "hee hee"?
I think it was you who stated that nothing can be gained from posting at sciforums...and I guess you are hell bent on ensuring that holds true...
Cryptic intelligence is the highest form of intelligence. Sometimes it leads to brilliance such as Einstein, Feynman, Da Vinci, Newton etc...but other times it can lead to scrambled egg that takes quite a bit of work to decipher.
It takes a lot of emotional discipline to cut out the extreme flamboyant use of words, such as "serf, vassal, protectorat" when communicating. Often really smart people can be seriously challenged with mental health issues, emotional hubris and turmoil.
Perhaps if were you more interested in what you can learn than what people are failing to teach you might enjoy your time here at sciforums more.
and no .. hee hee is not as good as (chuckle) or even lol.
Now that we have all these dang emoji's perhaps a
would suffice...
sarcasm rarely works for any one, nor does being constantly facetious.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I think it was you who stated that nothing can be gained from posting at sciforums...and I guess you are hell bent on ensuring that holds true...
Cryptic intelligence is the highest form of intelligence. Sometimes it leads to brilliance such as Einstein, Feynman, Da Vinci, Newton etc...but other times it can lead to scrambled egg that takes quite a bit of work to decipher.
It takes a lot of emotional discipline to cut out the extreme flamboyant use of words, such as "serf, vassal, protectorat" when communicating. Often really smart people can be seriously challenged with mental health issues, emotional hubris and turmoil.
Perhaps if were you more interested in what you can learn than what people are failing to teach you might enjoy your time here at sciforums more.
and no .. hee hee is not as good as (chuckle) or even lol.
Now that we have all these dang emoji's perhaps a
sarcasm rarely works for any one, nor does being constantly facetious.
I don't think I posted that nothing can be gained from posting here (I could have though so prove me wrong if you'd like to).
Your next point is one of the most popular here on this forum, usually used by the poster and that is if one is quirky, can't communicate, has no focus, leaves others to guess as their meaning...that it's a trait that is common to Einstein and therefore they are probably another Einstein.
Word salad, stating the obvious with tortured words and then pretending something profound was just said is not being like Einstein. Push gravity, dark being a "thing", there being no time, Mad Max worlds, etc. is just nonsense and not a genius trying to communicate with us. Nine hundred posts about free will in a deterministic world isn't going to lead to a sudden breakthrough into anything either. Get real.
Anyway, they're not conspiracy theorists. Just strong in their faith.
What's actually funny is that there have very deliberate and concerted effort to cast doubt - or worse - on climate science. From some angles, it might even look like a conspiracy. But, of course, it was only a very, very, very expensive movie.
What's actually funny is that there have very deliberate and concerted effort to cast doubt - or worse - on climate science. From some angles, it might even look like a conspiracy. But, of course, it was only a very, very, very expensive movie.
Last edited:
you did and even I could not be bothered finding the quote to ...uhm quote....
No... my point was not...here it is again ...care to have another go at it...
you could have posted
" Granted but...."
But, no you didn't...so now we are having to repeat the point to deal with your angst at anything productive.
The so called breakthrough occurred much earlier about 2 or three threads before the one you are mentioning... the rest of the BS is because of posts similar to yours trying very hard to ensure that there is no breakthrough.
The last number of posts in this thread are because you require an audience to demonstrate your contempt for forum rules and any attempt at meaningful discussion by claiming you facile sarcasm is good humor...and somehow appropriate and on topic...
Last edited:
Seattle
If you have a gripe about other members there is a forum category suitable for this.
http://www.sciforums.com/forums/about-the-members.86/
I suggest you take it there....
If you have a gripe about other members there is a forum category suitable for this.
http://www.sciforums.com/forums/about-the-members.86/
I suggest you take it there....
lol ^^
To the OP - I wouldn't say they're conspiracy theorists, rather they just seem ignorant to the evidence that is before them, pointing to climate change. For some though, the ''denying'' has more to do with the how of climate change, not necessarily that they deny climate change, altogether. They simply don't believe that humankind plays a crucial role in it.
To the OP - I wouldn't say they're conspiracy theorists, rather they just seem ignorant to the evidence that is before them, pointing to climate change. For some though, the ''denying'' has more to do with the how of climate change, not necessarily that they deny climate change, altogether. They simply don't believe that humankind plays a crucial role in it.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
You can suggest all you want but I'll be on the lookout for more Android Andy threads.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
as you mention the OP
To Deny climate change is to know science enough to be able to know it is not climate change
the scientists say it is.
so the quantity of scientific opinion and data supports the theory
if they are going to take up a position of scientific definition to say it is not true and not possible.
they need to show that in scientific terms
but they dont
the out right denial is the process of defining a scientific position
conspiracy theorists define cause and effect from circumstantial premise of assumed fact about hear-say
this is no different to opposing a scientific methodology by presenting an opinion
where you may be getting confused is inside the idea that "everyone has a right to an opinion"
that is correct and modern and somewhat conservatively constructed into a Geo-political aspect
however...
there opinion is purely that
having an uninformed opinion of raising children, emergency medical service like re-resuscitation CPR
or having an opinion about gun-powder, does not invalidate the scientific principals and cause and effect of the real facts.
misinformation is just that
designed to confuse the real debate.
some philosophers may need to jump in and explain the technicalities to you here.
subjective opinion is not conclusive evidential premise
it is subjective opinion.
the jump to conclusive factualisation is the conspiracy theorists base principal and also the base principal to cult indoctrination(interestingly enough)
I didn’t suggest that everyone has a right to their opinion in that post. I’m just saying that there’s more than one option when it comes to why naysayers of climate change have the opinions they do. I don’t think it automatically labels them as conspiracy theorists, although that could be the case for many.
Yes, but the options are fewer now than twenty years ago. Probably, as with any party loyalty, more than half are simply repeating and defending the slogans of their faction, without bothering to learn the source of those party lines. There are many, also, who prefer to believe whatever is most convenient for them and many more who lack the perspicuity and imagination to believe that the world as they know it can change. There are even a few contrarians who deny anything, on principle, to be against the trend.
Just before every great upheaval in history, there were the very few who saw the early warning signs and tried to avert it, the minority who saw the calamity looming on their horizon and tried to mitigate the damage, and the large majority, taken by surprise.
Not automatically, no.
But you can identify (by their terminology and reference, if they cite any: Delingpole, Breitbart et al) a certain group that's been convinced of a particular theory regarding a "conspiracy of climate alarmists". They're not the actual theorists, mind you; they're just the enthusiastic gulls of a manufactured - but entertaining - line of propaganda.
And then there are the manufacturers of propaganda, who are not conspiracy theorists; who eloquently disparage conspiracy theories; who encourage the mocking dismissal or anyone who suspects a conspiracy of any kind [as though no conspiracy had ever occurred in human history, nor ever could] . This attitude, popularly held, is the best cover for conspirators.
Last edited: