Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Sunday April 26 2015, @01:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the denial-is-a-river-in-egypt dept.

So, it has come to this! Universities are now offering courses on how to argue against climate change denialists! (Note, even mentioning such courses could be illegal in Florida, but fortunately this is in Australia.)

Starting 28 April, 2015, the University of Queensland is offering a free Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) aimed at “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial”.

You know you've made it when they start teaching about you in college! Well done, climate change deniers!!!
And a MOOC? Hmmm, is there a "certificate" one might earn?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:09PM

    by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:09PM (#175341) Journal

    Between the proven-broken climate models, exposed literal conspiracies to manipulate study outcomes, intentional deletion of raw data, and omission of naturally occurring CO2 output from volcanic eruptions that if included violently skews the desired outcomes away from the mankind-is-evil viewpoint, I have no patience for flagrant fork-tongued parallels drawn between people like myself who have bothered to look behind the flimsy facade of "man-made climate change" and holocaust deniers.

    When the last bits of ammunition being flung at those who aren't buying the snake oil is ad hominem, I think that fact speaks volumes all by itself.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=9, Overrated=1, Disagree=4, Total=18
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:15PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:15PM (#175343) Journal

    UofQ - I guess that's shorthand for Front Office of the Ministry of Propaganda. FOMP for short. Or, would that be UNFOMP - United Nations Front Office of the Ministry of Propaganda?

    I guess I could sign up for the course, just to see how stupid it is. It doesn't promise to teach anything about climatology, it only promises to teach how to argue with deniers. Interesting . . .

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:56PM (#175352)

    good goy

    • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @03:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @03:02PM (#175353)

      "goy"? What is this garbage?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:16PM (#175361)

        It's the thin blue line!

      • (Score: 1) by In hydraulis on Tuesday April 28 2015, @12:39AM

        by In hydraulis (386) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @12:39AM (#175910)

        You shall not parse!

  • (Score: 1) by JJ on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:26AM

    by JJ (5043) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:26AM (#175997)

    from: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php [usgs.gov]

    Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.”

    and from the same page:

    Yearly CO2 emitters                                       Billion metric tons per year (Gt/y)
    Global volcanic emissions (highest preferred estimate)         0.26
    Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010                                     33.6

    • (Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:31AM

      by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:31AM (#176004) Journal

      My original post mentioned volcano data due to a study that lied by ommission to list the USA as the world's worst pollution problem and was being used to try to pass harmful laws on the citizens of the USA. I am unable to find the study; as I recall, it was released shortly after the hockey-stick kerfuffle and is now lost to me in the swill. (An accurate presentation of the same study would have the USA on par or perhaps surpassed by a Pacific/Asian nation which was host to excluded volcanic activity during the study's time period.) I can't personally keep up with all the claims being churned out by "man-made climate change" proponents; it's just that every single time I've stopped to look into one or another particular claim or study, it has failed to hold up under scrutiny.

      I reject "climate solutions" that require people in the USA to shiver in the dark while blocking implementation of zero-emission power production solutions available in the form of passive-safe [soylentnews.org] molten-salt nuclear reactors [wired.com], while at the same time doing nothing to address the related problems in that China and developing countries will not impose such self-destructive policies within their own borders and thus render any USA-only based non-solutions irrelevant.

      Part of the responsibility of being a human is being responsible with the resources we have available; this view is by no means diminished by distrusting a government whose agents have established a generations-long track record of lying to further their own agendas.

      Pointing to a government agency's current data as evidence to support claims made by scientists largely funded by that same government seems questionable at best. Then factor in outside [wattsupwiththat.com] evidence [drroyspencer.com] which claims that government actors have altered what is being presented as historical data to favor the "man-made climate change" claims. At that point, I'm afraid I can't see eye-to-eye with supporters of the government line anymore, as there are now too many red flags blocking my field of vision.

      You're not likely to find many people who intentionally want to dump waste into the air and water. What people like me do object to are false choices such as the ones presented by government at gunpoint.

      • (Score: 1) by JJ on Friday May 01 2015, @10:03AM

        by JJ (5043) on Friday May 01 2015, @10:03AM (#177418)

        Here's what you said:

        "and omission of naturally occurring CO2 output from volcanic eruptions that if included violently skews the desired outcomes away from the mankind-is-evil viewpoint"

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @11:25AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @11:25AM (#178098)

          Correct, and in context of the study's details, it attempted to paint the USA as a beacon of evil consumption harming defenseless mother nature... except that the omitted volcano data from just one Pacific/Asian nation (it very well could have been abnormal activity, but it was verifiably present in the study's time period from other sources and was missing in the study itself) defeated the headline claims of the study. Thus, rather than the USA's standard of living being presented as a desirable thing for all of humankind, it was insinuated as something evil because of carbon emissions.

          Like many things I've looked into just for my own purposes, it would be simpler if I could just manage to remember enough unique details to find the source. Unfortunately, I cannot. Thankfully, from my viewpoint, the "manmade climate change" models have all failed to hold up to history, so I don't yet need to lose too much sleep over relative minutiae.