Sorry bro, but if you deny the data provided by NASA you are in the same box as flat earthers...

 

If the data is so convincing then the professor could present it in a debate should the topic come up and prove it.  That isn't what's happening here. But like you said he's free to shut down the free thought of others.  

 

And should the University decide to fire a professor for presenting certain ideas, well, it's their university and this is a free country.  

 

And should the government decide to shut down a university for teaching unapproved ideas, well, it's their country and they are free to do what they want with it.

---

Anyone still a smoking causes cancer denier? Or they all moved onto this cause?

---

Anyone still a smoking causes cancer denier? Or they all moved onto this cause?

 

Proof that if you can get a scientist to come up with whatever "conclusion" you desire.

 

And that, my friends, is science.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Flat earther?  stop being dramatic.

 

Of course you won't debate it.  Neither will this professor, and that's the problem.  This is a free country.  We don't silence free thought.  It should be encouraged and if something is untrue, there should be no problem in presenting evidence to debunk the theory.

 

These people can't handle differing opinions all the while claiming to be tolerant.  This is intolerance.  This is a dogmatic belief system that is all too common in our society.

 

In my philosophy class, everybody was permitted to present their ideas and thoughts to the table and everybody had a civil discussion.  Apparently that's being done away with in this class.  The thoughts are provided for you, no need to come up with your own.

 

But the course isn't about whether or not man made climate change is real.   The course is about what will happen if man made climate change is real.   That's why it starts with the premise that man made climate change is real.    And that's why they don't want people to come to the class expecting to debate the basic premise of the class!  

 

What's so hard about this to understand?  

---

Fixed it for you.

So NASA does faux science? Lol!!


You honestly are going to sit there and say NASA is fake? Oh dear...

---

Double post

---

But the course isn't about whether or not man made climate change is real.   The course is about what will happen if man made climate change is real.   That's why it starts with the premise that man made climate change is real.    And that's why they don't want people to come to the class expecting to debate the basic premise of the class!  

 

What's so hard about this to understand?  

 

I do understand, and it's stupid.  I find it silly to act like there isn't enough time in the day to respond to anybody who might raise their hand and be like, "How do you know this will happen?" or whatever the question might be.  The answer is "GET OUT".  Come on.  That is absurd.

---

So NASA does faux science? Lol!!


You honestly are going to sit there and say NASA is fake? Oh dear...

 

NASA will provide what is expected.  They'd prefer to keep their funding, particularly in their current environment (shuttle program scrapped, etc.)

 

Again, you're ignoring findings to the contrary.  NASA has no monopoly on facts.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

NASA will provide what is expected.  They'd prefer to keep their funding, particularly in their current environment (shuttle program scrapped, etc.)

 

Again, you're ignoring findings to the contrary.  NASA has no monopoly on facts.

 

They know the Earth is round. Show some respect man.

---

I do understand, and it's stupid. I find it silly to act like there isn't enough time in the day to respond to anybody who might raise their hand and be like, "How do you know this will happen?" or whatever the question might be. The answer is "GET OUT". Come on. That is absurd.

It's a university class. The students don't direct the lectures.


This isn't that hard to understand...

---

NASA will provide what is expected. They'd prefer to keep their funding, particularly in their current environment (shuttle program scrapped, etc.)


Again, you're ignoring findings to the contrary. NASA has no monopoly on facts.

Correct.


That's why 98% of scientists agree with NASA on the facts.

---

Correct.


That's why 98% of scientists agree with NASA on the facts.

 

Because their funding depends on it.

 

Again, there's evidence to the contrary that isn't tied to funding dependent on outcome.  

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I recall, at the peak of my collegiate political brainwashing, one of my professors was throwing fits about fossil fuels and alternative energy.  While those issues are important, the "sell" for him to get the desired buy-in was to use bogus figures to "prove" (err, scare the weak minded) that the planet was going to be completely empty of oil and gasoline by the late 90s.

 

Everything is always an exaggeration and pushed to the extreme to "sell" the extremist left viewpoint.

 

That should be a huge red flag to the thinking man.  If you're correct, there's absolutely no reason to lie to "sell" your argument.

 

And if you are right, you shouldn't worry about conforming behavior.  There is no worry as truth speaks for itself.  Only lying needs a forced compliance to create a false truth.

 

Again, this "man made" climate change myth is a direct result of the above.

 

It was falsely based on Al Gore's fraudulent retirement scheme after getting rejected in 2000.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Flat earthers and climate deniers both ignore NASA data.


If that's the company you want to keep, be my guest.

 

Your statement is so full of errors, that you should be embarrassed to post it.

 

Rather than just spout what you read on left-wing websites, you should actually look at the data, read from the original sources about how it was compiled, and make up your own mind.

 

The very term "climate deniers" is a lie. Climate skeptics are skeptical of catastrophic man-made warming, not that the planet has warmed. Skeptics even agree that CO2 should have some warming effect. The planet has been warming since the 1700s, long before we enriched the atmosphere with CO2. The warming claimed by the believers since 1900 is about 1 degree, but half of that occurred before 1950, i.e. before human-released CO2 became significant.

 

1. That's a typical leftist tactic to group people you disagree with with people everyone disagrees with. You should be ashamed. Climate skeptics have nothing in common with flat-earthers, who are probably mostly your leftists comrades. There are people on the Right who believe in conspiracies, but they are government/political conspiracies (and evolution which is a religious belief). The anti-science crowd is from the Left; they are the ones who question the moon landing; they are the anti-vaccine crazies.

 

2. NASA is not the source of any data. The NASA climate scientists take data compiled by NOAA and filter, interpolate, extrapolate, and adjust, and then publish the results. The data reduction process is necessary because the ground data sites have poor global coverage, with most of them in the US and Europe. The ocean data is from occasion measurements of ocean temperature by passing ships. These were sporadic in time, and mainly limited to shipping channels. Since 2003 we have pretty good global coverage of the oceans from ARGO. Anything before that should have huge error bars attached.


 

3. There is satellite data (not from NASA) since 1979 that actually covers the whole planet (minus small areas at the poles). The satellite data shows significantly less warming than the adjusted result from ground measurements. There are two groups compiling and reducing the satellite data, one headed by a skeptic (who agrees that it's warming and that CO2 has an effect) the other by a confirmed warmist. They both agree very closely. They show about 0.4 degrees of warming between 1979 and 2000, and none since then until the 2015 el Nino.


 

Check out Professor Judith Curry, she was once a believer who decided to actually investigate the truth. Now she's called a "Climate Heretic" which ironically exposes the religious nature of the Warmist community.



https://judithcurry.com/

 

Like I said, don't just accept what the Warmist priests tell you, ... or what I have told you. Investigate it yourself.

 

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

It's a university class. The students don't direct the lectures.


This isn't that hard to understand...

 

I understand how college courses work and discussion/feedback is a key component.  Did you attend Hitler Youth for school or something?

 

"Direct the lectures"? What are you talking about?  No student was like, "Man, i wanted to take over the course myself and become the teacher but they told me no."  Get out of here with that crap.

---

NASA's mission was converted in 2010 from space exploration to "Muslim outreach".  If I want to know about the Koran, I'll ask NASA.  If I want to launch an astronaut to the International Space Station, I'll ask the Russians.

---

I understand how college courses work and discussion/feedback is a key component. Did you attend Hitler Youth for school or something?

Lol. Good one!

---

Because their funding depends on it.


Again, there's evidence to the contrary that isn't tied to funding dependent on outcome.

This is a flat earth type argument!!!

---

NASA's mission was converted in 2010 from space exploration to "Muslim outreach".  If I want to know about the Koran, I'll ask NASA.  If I want to launch an astronaut to the International Space Station, I'll ask the Russians.

 

lol, you have some serious issues.

---

;

;

This is a flat earth type argument!!!

 

Yes, yours is a flat Earth type argument.  "everyone agrees"... is just that.  When there's science proving the contrary.

 

Goddard has exposed the fraud.  But of course, you haven't bothered because you aren't interested in any truth that's contrary to your predetermined view.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."