Correlation isn't taxation!!

Show me your p-value!

Over 0.9thousand

This seems a little shallow.

Anyone that doesn't agree with you is either a parrot or a paid shill.

I don't think that's what he's said at all though.

He actually goes into more detail further down in the comment:

Make then explain, not with links or sources, ask them questions. If they respond angrily then bingo, parrot.

While it's a bit extreme, I agree with the general idea of what he's saying. If somebody can't actually explain their thought process/reasoning behind a certain stance (that happens to be a popular one), then they are a parrot. This applies in all topics in life.

I really don't think it's fair that you have replied to this post in this way. You're putting words in his mouth. Lots of people jump straight to the comments when they open such threads and you seem to be trying to derail this one with a bit of a strawman reply, in all honesty.

by limiting the avenues which you can pursue to provide proof, you're intentionally trying to curtail the fact-based truth from coming out. providing links or sources is a GOOD thing, it means there's actual SCIENCE behind what you say. to try to stop empirical proof from coming to the fore is extremely anti-intellectual. maybe being PC and beating around the bush (by simply implying the OP is shallow instead of coming out and saying it) is the right way to go about things, but i can understand the frustration.

it definitely appears to me like what Rockran said is correct.

"There are 3 types of people here, conspiracy theorists, paid shills and parrots."

Maybe there are more types of people here.

Most people will parrot some things and then think other things through for themselves.

How did you get that from what he said?

He didn't even mention anything about saying things he doesn't agree with lmao.

The only thing I 'parrot' is that humans adding into climate change is NOT a myth and the Earth is NOT flat.

Shiiiiilllllllllll

: (

How so? I wish I was getting paid for pointing out stupidity but unfortunately I'm on the wrong side of the discussion to get any payments lol

Pulling gas, coal and oil out of the ground and burning them for fuel adds into the already present gases in the atmosphere. That's the only proof that is needed to say we should be getting on with a different fuel source other than fossil fuels.

So where is your 'proof'?

That's not how your OP states. It states to talk it out so let's talk it out. Why do you have the belief that burning fossil fuels does not put extra chemicals into the atmosphere and subsequently doesn't add into climate change? I don't need sources, I want your opinion. (Just please don't say 'carbon tax' and / or CO2 is good for plants... Because I have a retort for both lol)

You seem to think it's a myth so I am asking how you have came to that conclusion. No sources. Just you and that brain of yours : )

I know for a fact that during every mass extinction event, the atmospheric conditions changed which resulted in an ice age. There is data world wide to 'prove' that.

I want to know how you have came to your ridiculous speculation that man is not add excess chemicals into the atmosphere which will not push us towards climate change? Saying 'it can't be proven' can be said for most, if not all conspiracies so that is a false statement (especially regarding humans output into the atmosphere and Earths history regarding the changes in atmospheric conditions concluding to an ice age.)

I want to know your thoughts, not just disbelief. I don't believe in certain things but I still have my own thoughts about them : )

Yes I want to know how you came to that conclusion.

What, do you just disbelieve everything or something along those lines? There must be a reason why you disbelieve that burning fossil fuels adds extra chemicals into the atmosphere which will push us towards climate change therefore next ice age will be sooner.

Nothing can be done to stop climate change. Trying to stop it could fuck up the planet big time. The Earth goes through cycles so it essentially needs to happen (who knows WTF would happen if the cycles didn't conclude.)

There is no 'proof' for what you asked for but I do believe that there could be a Mass Extinction Event on our hands in the future. Hopefully not in my lifetime but who knows...

You asked me to provide proof when...

Make then explain, not with links or sources, ask them questions.

I have explained. Now you explain your PoV.

No you've not apart from 'there's no proof.' There's not much proof in conspiracies so that's not a valid argument in my eyes.

Provide evidence in support of climate change. I guess we know because before mankind existed there must have been a bloke saying "hey guys, this is the bar, we start here". I've watched both Bill Nye and Tyson make idiots out of themselves talking about climate change because it cannot be proven.

You are effectively saying that you do not believe that climate change exists and every comment subsequently after that are along the same lines. So what are your thoughts on the matter then? I have explained mine.

So you don't believe because there is no 'proof'? When there is plenty of 'proof' to suggest that the atmosphere changes before an ice age. We are certainly adding into the atmosphere so I fail to see how you have formed your opinion and would like to know what your thoughts on climate change, pollution and ice ages and why you disbelieve we are contributing to the atmospheric conditions. No proof doesn't cut it for me. There's not proof of much of the shit that's spoke about on this sub. Why is human made climate change false?

Ditto. We seem to be going round in circles. I'm asking questions and you seem to be avoiding them.

Make then explain, not with links or sources, ask them questions. If they respond angrily then bingo, parrot. parrots hate being held to the flames because they only know what MSM has told them. These people are worse then paid shills.

Maybe take your own advice.

Everyone has an opinion, especially regarding pollution from fuels going into the atmosphere. All I'm trying to do is find out how and why you have came to your conclusion. I haven't accused you of being angry. I just said take your own advice lol and answer questions that you are biting at. I have explained what I think I know, so explain what you think you know about it. Having 'no opinion' and 'no proof' doesn't work for me.

You have decided that you don't have an opinion about man affected climate change yet arguing with me for sources. Fuck the sources, I have explained how and why I have came to my thinking, you have not. You have to think we have an effect or we do not.

Make then explain, not with links or sources, ask them questions.

Take your own advice. You want proof when I want a discussion / conversation lol

You retorted to my original statement so you must've wanted a discussion. You wanted sources for me to 'prove' myself (which went against your OP) and I have been trying to find out what your thoughts and opinions are about man affecting climate change. You have been dodging the question that much, I swear you could be a politician.

Make then explain, not with links or sources, ask them questions.

Your OP says not to ask for sources so you are going against your own post lol

All I am doing is asking if you think humans affect the climate or not. Yes or no answer. Doesn't matter about proof or sources, I want your opinion since you are harassing me for sources to prove myself (when your OP says to ask questions, which you have failed to do but you went against your OP and started asking for sources to back myself up.)

Do humans affect the climate with burning fuels?

Evidence = source.

Burning fuels releases trapped chemicals into the atmosphere. It's that simple. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and not answer and questions so be it

You can prove it : )

Sit in an enclosed room and burn a fossil fuel fire. See what happens ; )

It will 'prove' the effect it has on the human body. If you want to take the experiment further, do it in a greenhouse with big chunks of ice : )

Life on earth comes into the global warming / climate change debate because it affects life and previous ice ages have been associated with mass extinction events. It all connects. The world fucks up, we all die.

What would be a reasonable standard of proof for you?

There's plenty of evidence to show that global climate temperatures have risen dramatically over the past couple hundred years (since we started burning fossil fuels), far beyond the rates of the previous few millenia.

Are you suggesting that this data is wrong, or that it doesn't represent a continuing trend?

Fact is, there is evidence suggesting such a trend. By all means, refute it and we can return to a state of complete ambiguity.

According to the original posters logic, any scientist that agrees with climate change that hasn't studied it them self is a "parrot". I think "climate change" has become political talking point and is now a source of tax revenue here in Canada. How about we make a plan to pollute less in all forms? Nope the government can't figure a way to profit from that. There are cities that drop sewage straight into rivers, that would be a good place to start.

Just look at that thread on the 747, pentagon image. Loads of shills and parrots

It must have got into /r/all which has affected it as well

Why don't they just mass downvote the posts since they're obviously mass upvoting their anti-conspiracy comments?

It's almost like they want the topic to achieve prominence just so they can go through their little act of "debunking" it.

I'm thinking the comments were placed so that when it reaches/reached/had reached frontpage, people coming in would have had that comment first.

This is correct, if the post never made the front page, then no one would see the dissenting opinions. It's more effective to have the post visible many redditors with a top comment "are you cool enough to hang out with the cool kids?".

Yes agreed, the number of upvotes early on that some of the comments in threads have seem statistically impossible.

This is correct, if the post never made the front page, then no one would see the dissenting opinions. It's more effective to have the post visible many redditors with a top comment "are you cool enough to hang out with the cool kids?".

The fact that "the parrots" mistake themselves for "the cool kids" is just too ironic to handle.

Either way, it's contradictory that the post would garner so many upvotes by users of this forum and then be completely shit on in the comments. Goes to show that some kind of brigading or shilling is at play.

It's at 56% fucking upvoted, you absolute... Well, I don't think normal insults would work on you, so I'll just call you a reptile person.

What point are you trying to make? It got enough upvotes that it made it to the top of the front page. Clearly a popular post that users liked. Yet in the comments it was being widely criticized. That's what I'm pointing out.

Yes and the commentor doesn't appear to be much of a conspiracy theorist. I looked through his posts and didn't see any in /r/conspiracy.

It got enough upvotes that it made it to the top of the front page.

Lol, that's not exactly a high standard.

Clearly a popular post that users liked.

It was over 40% down voted. That's by far one of the most controversial posts I've ever seen hit the front page.

I have noticed this as well and have thought about it too. Thank you for finding a great way to articulate it.

Good post!

Many people also can't differentiate between opinion and facts. That's something I find most frustrating. Like, here are the facts and the only response is, but it's just your opinion man. No, it's not. With different facts I'd have a different opinion. Is that so hard to grasp? Guess it is, because most choose a side and stay on it till it crumbles and fall, no matter the facts. Like a fucking cult.

I like parroting, it has a more meaningful way for the analogy we're using it fro. Sheeps are way too fluffy and cute and can't harm anyone.

Dank memes melt steel beams

Yes, some birds are funny when they talk.

That boy needs therapy.

P S Y C H I S O M A T I C

What does that mean?

Two words:

Critical

Thinking

This process of analyzing and arbitrating has been trained out of people. Our minds are being nerfed by poor education and the perception of political correctness. They are winning the battle for the human mind.

LoL. I've been guilty of parroting bad data. I think we all have at some point.

Honestly, the quality of this sub dropped dramatically after that whole drama bit about this being a pro-Trump sub.

Now there are tireless anti-Trump posters and other varieties of filthy leftist that comment on every post with the same crap.

This place is divided. People have been predicting it for years. Theory goes is that TPB want to divide people so they fight amongst themselves instead of against a common enemy, that is literally what we are doing here.

Types of people: Willing slave Unwilling slave Usefull idiot

Shillin 24/7

Parrots are people who make comments on subjects they know little to nothing about and only repeat the official stories fed to them.

Define 'official' stories. Are they the ones pushed by 4chan or random youtube videos? Or are they the ones pushed by the trump admins or congress? And what happens when our own research agrees with the 'official' views?

The ones pushed by government and msm that contradict with evidence. For example: the official 9/11 story is that terrorists hijacked planes with boxcutters and flew them into the twin towers and pentagon because they "hate America's freedoms".

the official 9/11 story is that terrorists hijacked planes with boxcutters and flew them into the twin towers and pentagon because they "hate America's freedoms".

Oh, I remember. When progressives/liberals started asking questions those ever loyal to the government conservatives called such people 'evil', traitors, etc.

But also don't be so quick to discard msm news. There is a hard propaganda push from the right to discredit anything and anyone who dares to criticize their master, trump. Be careful you don't simply jump on a bandwagon they are driving just because you find flaws in the press (which has always had them).

Too many now seem to rush off to find preachers who tell them what they want to hear, even if it is all or mostly lies (4chan, zerohedge, etc).

Judge all sources the same.

Oh don't worry, I recognise the bias from all sides. I don't disregard any media though. I acknowledge it, compare it to what other media outlets say, try to form the best idea of truth based on what resources I have at my disposal. There's pushes from both the hard right, hard left, neo-liberals, and every "side", and that's because "sides" are controlled. There are no sides in the end. Just differing philosophies and ideologies. Politics should be about taking different aspects of these ideologies and applying them where most relevant to better the greater society. Problem is it's been hijacked and drilled into the minds of the people that politics is about choosing a box to put yourself in and pushing for only that forever. Politics don't account for the very nature of the universe - change. Practicing ideologies is problematic as ideologies don't plan for their own inevitable, eventual obsoletion.

I'm a parrot but I'll cite what I'm parroting. :D

OP you have it all wrong. There are three types of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. If you aren't a dick you're probably getting fucked.

Pussies don't like dicks because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes. Assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck a asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate. And it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves. Because pussies are a inch and half away from assholes. I don't know much about this crazy crazy world, but I do know this. If you don't let us fuck this asshole we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit.

Wonderful post.

Before you achieve real consciousness, you must root out false consciousness.

(even truthfully) Calling someone a parrot will get you banned.

Soon

You forgot the fourth type: The open minded skeptic. Those who want to believe, but in some cases (flat earth) find it hard to do so, and instead ask for non affiliated sources that back up theories. Whether that's scientific reasoning (flat earth as an example), or independent witnesses and sources not aligned with any one agenda.

Can I be a toucan instead?

Jeje.Our beloved parrots.

If the theory is true or has legs I'll gladly parrot it