debate channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_nFI2Zb7qE

I'm here. If you don't have anything particular you want to discuss. I think climate change is a good one because it is strongly related to distrust in the media, distrust in science, etc.

For decades scientists have been warning us that man made causes are influencing the climate in disastrous ways and that we need to take action. Why ignore them?

Not sure what you mean by that

Ok, got it. So in your case, it's NOT about some conspiracy, but simply your belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Obviously if God created the Earth he would have made it indestructible by humans

There is no rational, logical, way to reason with someone like that.

Ok, so yes, the source of funding can certainly influence research to an extent, but a 97% consensus cannot be bought. There is a peer review process for publishing studies that acts as a sort of checks and balances. That being said, I think if we look into who did the funding it wouldn't be controversial.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations. Is there some agenda they have to somehow fabricate science and somehow silence scientist who disagree with their findings?

Ok, lets follow the money. Who is funding climate research?

Is it all clean energy companies? No

Figuring out all of the sources of funding for climate change is probably a difficult task because it comes from all sorts of sources. The biggest one might be the Federal governments or the UN, I'm not sure. But there's also universities, non-profits, and things like that. So it doesn't make sense to say it's all a concerted effort with some secret agenda behind it.

But if your the one saying "it's the funding, follow the money." I would expect you to have the data on that

Alarmism is one thing. I have no doubt that there is alarmism. But there's also 97% of scientists who are saying it's a very serious problem

Almost every credible scientific institution uses that 97% number. You're saying all of these institutions are not trustworthy? NASA, for example

opensecrets looks like a legit source of information.

Ok, the thing is. I'm not actually interested in conspiracies theories, because I understand how science works and I understand that it would be impossible to keep a huge conspiracy in the shadows.

A scientist's reputation and credibility is based on the credibility of their work. If they put out a study that uses poor methods, some other scientist will point it out and the study would be discredited. The scientist who pointed out the poor methods would be highly respected.

Science never claims to have the final word on something. It never claims anything is 100% proven. It is always open to being proven wrong.

If a scientist makes a discovery that goes against the current consensus, and that research can be replicated by other scientists, then that scientist RECIEVES A NOBEL PRIZE.

If a university suppressed research it would be a big controversy. It wouldn't go unnoticed.

The scientists who did the research would be like "Wtf, they suppressed our research." and they would report it to the world and their fellow scientists

@Jayde So, your claim is that institutions are either suppressing research, or the scientists are supressing themselves because they want to get funding from the institutions, correct?

The reason for that is because their methods are discredited. Science is not about opinion and group think. It's based on a rigorous process.

No, they absolutely CAN be wrong! But currently 97% believe that with the current models we have, those models are pointing to serious consequences

Do you want me to google it? I don't know what produces the most CO2

the largest human source is fossil fuels by far

because I'm not argueing with scientists. I'm not a scientists. I'm trying to explain why it's impossible to pay off a bunch of scientists to fulfill some secret agenda

Don't you think if there were so many scientists being paid off, some of them would be heroes and spill the beans?

They would be hugely respected by exposing this corruption

Ya im in voice btw. I don't have a mic

TBH, I've given my best arguements already.

Ok, thanks for being respectful

I'm back because it bugs me that no one is able to grasp this logic. Let's say some scientists were paid to create a study with bad science that shows blueberries cause cancer. In order for this study to get published, it must go through a peer review process, so those peers would have to be paid off as well. Now it's been published and the media writes an article about it. Eventually, some other scientists will see the study and discredit it and the original scientist's reputations are now damaged. So, how is it fathomable that bad science could happen on a large scale without being called out?

sorry hi

It's not speculation. It's a simple hypothetical based on the real world

No one has addressed the hypothetical I presented.

You tell me to question things. I'm asking you to do the same.

If you can't provide a plausible explanation of how a consensus can arise out of bad science, why would I believe it?

No, I watch David Pakman and Sam Seder

I don't know what Q is, haha

I was looking for political streams on Twitch and saw the Soap Box being restreamed there from youtube.

I don't follow it, I just stumbled upon it yesterday and wanted to see if it's possible to reason with the right

If America goes the way I want it to, it would be more like Scandinavian countries who are social democracies

they have some of the best standard of living

universal healthcare, more opportunity through education, etc

No. Social Democratic

The wealthy pay for it.

Also, programs like this stimulate the economy

Social democracy is essentially capitalism with with a lower top and a higher bottom. You can't say it "failed" when it works perfectly well in many other countries. The forms of socialism that failed, like communism failed because they were authoritarian. Venezuela, for example, is authoritarian

If you raise people out of poverty and give them opportunities that raises the standard of living. I don't know anything about the Congo, some place in Africa

Ya, I'm reading about QAnon. First time hearing about it

I don't mean to sound offensive, but you linked me a conspiracy theory video that provides zero evidence for its claims.

The deep state, for example. There is no evidence for it. There is no evidence that there's a secret kabal plotting behind the scenes

Which is a heavy claim and there should be heavy evidence for someone to believe it

Why do you think Q is a good faith actor who is who he claims he is? It's just some anon

My point is, anyone could just say they are an insider to the White House on an anonymous board

Unless they provide proof

What do you mean "What did Q say?"

?

@Ungaa Bungaa I don't know. What did Q say?

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just asking why you would believe it? I'm looking at qproofs.com rn

the burden of proof is on you, lol.

It seems like there's a bunch of flimsy evidence and people have to rely on confirmation bias and far fetched coincidences to piece it together