Cowspiracy: The Astonishing Hypocrisy of Climate Alarmists

This thread is silly trolling. Those who speak truth don't need to resort emotional manipulative rhetoric. Such inflammatory language is a sure sign that the message is an appeal to emotion, not to fact.

Unsub.
 
DaveC: I TOTALLY agree! Same issue with many of the ideological/political threads . . . . I thought Sciforums was primarily a group of science discussion fora. Evidently that philosophy has been corrupted . . . . (sigh!) . . . . by those with non-science agendas. But, then again, this post is also 'off-topic' . . . . .(another sigh!)
 
exchemist said:
Surely the correct expression is "preaching to the converted"? Preaching to the choir is not self-evidently ridiculous. :tongue:
Click to expand...
Google: 'preaching to the choir'

Meaning
To commend an opinion to those who already accept it.
Origin
'Preaching to the choir' (also sometimes spelled quire) is of US origin. It clearly refers to the pointlessness of a preacher attempting to convert those who, by their presence in church, have already demonstrated their faith. The first reference we can find is from 1973. Many other references date from soon after that, which points to the phrase being coined in that year; for example, this from The Lima News, Ohio, January 1973: "He said he felt like the minister who was preaching to the choir. That is, to the people who always come to church, but not the ones who need it most."
 
karenmansker said:
Google: 'preaching to the choir'

Meaning
To commend an opinion to those who already accept it.
Origin
'Preaching to the choir' (also sometimes spelled quire) is of US origin. It clearly refers to the pointlessness of a preacher attempting to convert those who, by their presence in church, have already demonstrated their faith. The first reference we can find is from 1973. Many other references date from soon after that, which points to the phrase being coined in that year; for example, this from The Lima News, Ohio, January 1973: "He said he felt like the minister who was preaching to the choir. That is, to the people who always come to church, but not the ones who need it most."
Click to expand...
Ah OK maybe that's it, and we in Britain say "preaching to the converted" to mean the same thing.

(speaking as a chorister, my impression is that preaching to the choir is by no means a pointless activity, but maybe my choir is less zealous than some!)
 
karenmansker said:
DaveC: I TOTALLY agree! Same issue with many of the ideological/political threads . . . . I thought Sciforums was primarily a group of science discussion fora. Evidently that philosophy has been corrupted . . . . (sigh!) . . . . by those with non-science agendas.
Click to expand...

Like "I agree . . . . Obama should be deported!!!" Agendas like that?
 
karenmansker said:
I thought Sciforums was primarily a group of science discussion fora
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is.
Or as you put it:
Methinks you are preaching to the choir
Click to expand...
Same thing.

So the question remains,
iceaura said:
Why don't you know such things?
Click to expand...
What you didn't know, to remind you, included among other things: 1) That the evidence from the Vostok ice cores is well known and has been thoroughly analyzed in detail by climate "alarmists" 2) That the origin of the additional CO2 in the air has been reliably determined in several mutually reaffirming ways to be from fossil fuel combustion and related activities (cement manufacturing, etc). 3) The the heat trapping behavior of airborne concentrations of CO2 has been checked in a couple of different ways and found to agree with laboratory measurements - there has been discovered no reason at all to modify the standard physical description of how CO2 and certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation interact.

The odd thing about not knowing that stuff is that you are posting about it, on a science forum. So you must have an interest. So why haven't you run across these commonly known and basic aspects of this matter you are interested in?
 
iceaura said:
Yeah, it is.
Or as you put it:
Same thing.

So the question remains,

What you didn't know, to remind you, included among other things: 1) That the evidence from the Vostok ice cores is well known and has been thoroughly analyzed in detail by climate "alarmists" 2) That the origin of the additional CO2 in the air has been reliably determined in several mutually reaffirming ways to be from fossil fuel combustion and related activities (cement manufacturing, etc). 3) The the heat trapping behavior of airborne concentrations of CO2 has been checked in a couple of different ways and found to agree with laboratory measurements - there has been discovered no reason at all to modify the standard physical description of how CO2 and certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation interact.

The odd thing about not knowing that stuff is that you are posting about it, on a science forum. So you must have an interest. So why haven't you run across these commonly known and basic aspects of this matter you are interested in?
Click to expand...

The odd thing about not digesting the actual Vostok ice data is that it leads one to believe his/her own prejudices that CO2 increases are ALL caused by fossil fuel combustion and therewith - by (faulty) definition -human-caused. The interaction of CO2 and certain wavelengths of EM (mostly IR) is not disputed, but to interpret the increase in CO2 as primarily human-caused (i.e., fossil fuel combustion) is irrresponsible. and faulty reasoning. BTW: cement manufacturing is a minor process that sequesters CO2. Oddly enough, using an over-the counter acid-based cleaner (like CLR, muriatic acid, etc.) dissolves carbonate precipitates and in the process releases CO2 into the atmosphere now - THAT'S alarming!! - do your part to prevent global warming by NOT cleaning your lavatories!! (HAHA!)
 
Last edited:
karenmansker said:
The odd thing about not digesting the actual Vostok ice data is that it leads one to believe his/her own prejudices that CO2 increases are ALL caused by fossil fuel combustion and therewith - by (faulty) definition -human-caused.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. That's bizarre. Nobody thinks the CO2 increases of the past were caused by humans, whether they ever heard of Vostok or not.
karenmansker said:
The interaction of CO2 and certain wavelengths of EM (mostly IR) is not disputed, but to interpret the increase in CO2 as primarily human-caused (i.e., fossil fuel combustion) is irrresponsible. and faulty reasoning.
Click to expand...
Which may be why pretty much nobody - certainly none of the famous climate alarmists, such as Al Gore - does any such "interpreting".
karenmansker said:
BTW: cement manufacturing is a minor process that sequesters CO2.
Click to expand...
Cement manufacturing is a significant source of CO2, mostly from the preliminary production of clinker http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/3_1_Cement_Production.pdf. Recent innovations offer some hope of reducing that in the future, but not yet: http://phys.org/news/2015-09-technique-cement-carbon-neutral.html
There is also a fair amount of fossil fuel combustion in transporting and using cement - that adds in.

Again: this is pretty much common knowledge among those at all interested in AGW from a scientific perspective. How is it that you have not encountered this information?
 
Anyway, this year old thread wasn't bumped by me, and I didn't really respond nicely in it, however, I found some quote:

The Union of Concerned Scientists has disputed the film's assertion, which runs counter to scientific consensus, that the majority of greenhouse gases driving climate change are produced by animal agriculture rather than fossil fuel emissions.[1]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowspiracy

...

And I'd like to add that I make peanut butter oatmeal smoothies, lentil/bean brown rice stew... and stuff to look for a full amino acid as in meat.
 
up6yu.jpg
 
It will just be so funny if things get so bad that it is obvious that the "alarmists" were right.

Too late to do a damn thing.

Of course the production of consumer trash designed to become obsolete for the last 50 years has been irrelevant. How much have American consumers lost on the Depreciation of automobiles each year for the last 5 decades.
 
psikeyhackr said:
It will just be so funny if things get so bad that it is obvious that the "alarmists" were right.
Click to expand...
Climate alarmism has been around for many years, long enough to test many unambiguous predictions. And as it has been so comically and astutely noted, from the many unquestionably false predictions, what more could be asked of a failed hypothesis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top