Read 2259 times

  • LIC
  • Super Waygook

    • 352

    • February 15, 2019, 04:39:00 pm
    • NE Hemisphere
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #60 on: October 07, 2019, 03:06:41 pm »
You can find arguments against man made climate change from reputable scientists out there, though obviously there are a lot more arguments for it. This is to be expected considering the amount of money for grants available proving links to man made activities and climate change and the amount of flack people get for speaking out against the 'consensus.'  This could explain away a large part of the 97% figure mentioned whenever the subject comes up.  Let's face it, for laymen the 97% consensus is the main thrust of most people's arguments.  We believe because nearly everybody else does and we don't want to look stupid.

Indeed. Those people are called sheeple. Sadly, the world is very heavily populated by them.


  • NorthStar
  • Expert Waygook

    • 627

    • July 05, 2017, 10:54:06 am
    • Munsan
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #61 on: October 07, 2019, 03:47:44 pm »
..and who are you to qualify your OPINION?
I feel he's clearly backed up his statements with quotes from a meta-analysis study, so they hardly count as opinions. More just a statement of generally agreed upon facts.

It is obvious this climate scare tactic has been going on for sometime...but folks just don't seem to recall or know about the past.
I agree. People who exaggerate serious issues such as this one can do an incredible amount of harm. By crying wolf (and inevitably being proven wrong), they give politicians the levers they need to claim that even the moderates are being overly extreme.
   I get that the public at large has the attention span of a chicken with its head cut off, and that accurate stats, probabilities, and info make for boring headlines, but c'mon...

I just cannot believe so man folks blindly believe in this nonsense.
    I'm curious what information leads you to brush climate issues off as nonsense. Hopefully it's not just a partisan thing.

  Partisan cueing certainly simplifies complex issues like human-caused climate change for people, but it also makes it far more difficult to deal with rationally.

Kyndo...well, for one...I don't drink the progressive kool-aid.  I recognize that the "climate change" is more than likely natural patterns in the earth's weather.  I recognize that those under the umbrella of tyranny, use any narrative in which they can use to subdue the population.  I see the correlation of past headlines and what did or did NOT happen vs the same recycled, doomsdayer tripe being soiled out now. 

I also recognize that many countries in the world...don' even have enough data on their own weather to offer an effective contribution.  It also makes sense that those that do not buy into the projected hype, are posters for character assassinations, shunned, marginalized and hogtied in the debate.  In addition, it makes perfect sense that academics find more pleasure in pursuing the money, rather than accurate data....going with the flow, in order to maintain relevancy. 

This is not because I am a partisan hack....while I lean more towards a conservative mindset, that actually entails the notion of conserving liberty, not progressively destroying it.  As I have said before, I am an independent and when I see dangerous politicians in the word, hammering on the "Global Warming", "Climate Change", "Meat is bad", etc, etc....my instincts suggest that they lying ...in bed with many parts of academia, trying to exercise its will on the population. 

Can you, or anyone else here, actually compile and read climate data, then present it in correct form?  I am willing to bet not. However, if there are folks here that can, despite NOT having majored in the fields of Geology or Meteorology, then the argument of Coleman's lack of credentials falls off the fence, completely.  Why?  Because one does not have to be a music major to know and understand how chord progressions work.  One does not have to major in History to understand the narratives behind WW1.  One does not have to have a complete academic background in meteorology  to understand humidity, high/low pressure systems, etc. 

At one time, didn't the American Tobacco Company, aligned with "science" insist smoking was not dangerous? 

How often does the weather channel actually get their forecasts right ,anyway?  That must be the best job...be wrong most of the time and still not get fired...so, why would anyone want to fully invest an affirmative belief in all of this/ whilst knowing that if the sheeple carry on, our way of live will be worse.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2019, 04:00:42 pm by NorthStar »


  • fka
  • Adventurer

    • 72

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #62 on: October 07, 2019, 04:01:00 pm »
Okay then, LIC, a similar question for you. If the current state of climate-related scientific research is unsatisfactory, what would you do differently? How would you devise a research project that won't lead sheeple to agree with the vast majority of the world's experts on the subject?

You presumably find modern research techniques to be lacking in rigor. So, what do we do if we can't rely on the data produced by collecting ice core samples, calculating the rate of coastal erosion, measuring glacial retreat, carbon dating the fossil record, designing advanced modelling tools and AI, coordinating data from global weather systems, developing more sophisticated remote sensing systems to track desertification and ocean temperature changes, along with the combined brain power of NASA, a multitude of the world's best universities and research organizations like the Royal Geographical Society?

If these instruments and institutions can't satisfy you, what is your superior idea? What is the "non-sheeple" methodology?


  • fka
  • Adventurer

    • 72

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #63 on: October 07, 2019, 04:05:16 pm »
North Star, that question is open to you too. Or you can answer the one I originally posed:

Quote
What would you suggest that those researchers do to remove their blinders? What would North Star the Scientist do differently when testing the hypothesis that there is broad scientific consensus surrounding anthropogenic emissions and climate change? What data sets would you consult, and how would your methodology differ?



  • LIC
  • Super Waygook

    • 352

    • February 15, 2019, 04:39:00 pm
    • NE Hemisphere
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #64 on: October 07, 2019, 04:36:27 pm »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

A calm rational thought from a man about climate change.  He has some credentials despite being older than 16, not an actor, not a politician and not a talking head on TV.


  • L I
  • The Legend

    • 3521

    • October 03, 2011, 01:50:58 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #65 on: October 07, 2019, 04:55:37 pm »
Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus.


  • NorthStar
  • Expert Waygook

    • 627

    • July 05, 2017, 10:54:06 am
    • Munsan
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #66 on: October 07, 2019, 06:10:41 pm »
North Star, that question is open to you too. Or you can answer the one I originally posed:

Quote
What would you suggest that those researchers do to remove their blinders? What would North Star the Scientist do differently when testing the hypothesis that there is broad scientific consensus surrounding anthropogenic emissions and climate change? What data sets would you consult, and how would your methodology differ?



There is so much point dodging here, why break the trend?


  • fka
  • Adventurer

    • 72

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #67 on: October 07, 2019, 06:29:33 pm »
North Star, that question is open to you too. Or you can answer the one I originally posed:

Quote
What would you suggest that those researchers do to remove their blinders? What would North Star the Scientist do differently when testing the hypothesis that there is broad scientific consensus surrounding anthropogenic emissions and climate change? What data sets would you consult, and how would your methodology differ?



There is so much point dodging here, why break the trend?

I think you're probably in the best position to answer the question, with your point dodging and all.

But let me be more direct...

Quote
I recognize that the "climate change" is more than likely natural patterns in the earth's weather.

Why do you think that science has failed to prove your hypothesis, instead showing a statistically significant correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and temperature increases (along with glacial retreat, desertification and sea level rise)?

If the scientific techniques that I outlined above are inadequate for proving your hypothesis, what kind of alternatives would you recommend?   


Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #68 on: October 08, 2019, 10:23:37 am »
..and who are you to qualify your OPINION?
I feel he's clearly backed up his statements with quotes from a meta-analysis study, so they hardly count as opinions. More just a statement of generally agreed upon facts.

It is obvious this climate scare tactic has been going on for sometime...but folks just don't seem to recall or know about the past.
I agree. People who exaggerate serious issues such as this one can do an incredible amount of harm. By crying wolf (and inevitably being proven wrong), they give politicians the levers they need to claim that even the moderates are being overly extreme.
   I get that the public at large has the attention span of a chicken with its head cut off, and that accurate stats, probabilities, and info make for boring headlines, but c'mon...

I just cannot believe so man folks blindly believe in this nonsense.
    I'm curious what information leads you to brush climate issues off as nonsense. Hopefully it's not just a partisan thing.

  Partisan cueing certainly simplifies complex issues like human-caused climate change for people, but it also makes it far more difficult to deal with rationally.

Kyndo...well, for one...I don't drink the progressive kool-aid.  I recognize that the "climate change" is more than likely natural patterns in the earth's weather.  I recognize that those under the umbrella of tyranny, use any narrative in which they can use to subdue the population.  I see the correlation of past headlines and what did or did NOT happen vs the same recycled, doomsdayer tripe being soiled out now. 

I also recognize that many countries in the world...don' even have enough data on their own weather to offer an effective contribution.  It also makes sense that those that do not buy into the projected hype, are posters for character assassinations, shunned, marginalized and hogtied in the debate.  In addition, it makes perfect sense that academics find more pleasure in pursuing the money, rather than accurate data....going with the flow, in order to maintain relevancy. 

This is not because I am a partisan hack....while I lean more towards a conservative mindset, that actually entails the notion of conserving liberty, not progressively destroying it.  As I have said before, I am an independent and when I see dangerous politicians in the word, hammering on the "Global Warming", "Climate Change", "Meat is bad", etc, etc....my instincts suggest that they lying ...in bed with many parts of academia, trying to exercise its will on the population. 

Can you, or anyone else here, actually compile and read climate data, then present it in correct form?  I am willing to bet not. However, if there are folks here that can, despite NOT having majored in the fields of Geology or Meteorology, then the argument of Coleman's lack of credentials falls off the fence, completely.  Why?  Because one does not have to be a music major to know and understand how chord progressions work.  One does not have to major in History to understand the narratives behind WW1.  One does not have to have a complete academic background in meteorology  to understand humidity, high/low pressure systems, etc. 

At one time, didn't the American Tobacco Company, aligned with "science" insist smoking was not dangerous? 

How often does the weather channel actually get their forecasts right ,anyway?  That must be the best job...be wrong most of the time and still not get fired...so, why would anyone want to fully invest an affirmative belief in all of this/ whilst knowing that if the sheeple carry on, our way of live will be worse.

Interesting that you mention smoking. I think it's as obvious that pollution and emissions can have a deleterious effect to our environment as it is that smoking can have a deleterious effect upon our health.

There are elements of the Climate Change agenda to question, but the fundamental underlying issue isn't one of them. You can say manmade climate change is not 100% of the problem, but still a statistically significant part of the problem. You can say that the climate models don't address things like tech or economic factors. You can say that the alarmists are perhaps overexaggerating the potential consequences.

But you can't just say "Bah, scientists have been wrong before, they're probably wrong now, and to heck with your data."


  • kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • 5272

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #69 on: October 08, 2019, 10:45:20 am »
Kyndo...well, for one...I don't drink the progressive kool-aid.  I recognize that the "climate change" is more than likely natural patterns in the earth's weather.  I recognize that those under the umbrella of tyranny, use any narrative in which they can use to subdue the population.
     You've mentioned this before, and I'm still curious what information you're using to support your assertion that current changes in climate conditions are completely natural. How do you "recognize" this to be the truth when there is an overwhelming supply of research that suggests the opposite?


I see the correlation of past headlines and what did or did NOT happen vs the same recycled, doomsayer tripe being soiled out now. 
    You mentioned this already as well, and yeah, it's still a valid point.
    I would counter with the fact that climatology is a field that is still maturing. The tools available that allow us to create climate models are orders of magnitude more sophisticated than those in the 90s, which were orders of magnitude more sophisticated than their predecessors. The nature and complexity of climate modelling means that the more processors one can throw at it, the more variables you can allow for, the more trustworthy the results will be.
    While the doomsayers are still just as full of sh!t, the research and scientific understanding of our atmosphere and our global climate processes has advanced by leaps and bounds.


I also recognize that many countries in the world...don' even have enough data on their own weather to offer an effective contribution.
Uh... no.
    Climate data stations are often literally just a thermometer and a humidity meter, and can be set up for peanuts (possibly also literally, depending on the country  :laugh:).
Even the poorest, least developed countries have a vested interest in obtaining comprehensive weather data -- weather is crucial to local economies, especially when those economies are agrarian. Go online and check out the weather forecasts for countries like Somalia and Myanmar: they have regional, hourly updated forecasts just like any other country.
   
Even if this were not the case, satellite data provides global coverage that can easily track and collate significant amounts of climate data in otherwise inaccessible areas such as North Korea etc.

It also makes sense that those that do not buy into the projected hype, are posters for character assassinations, shunned, marginalized and hogtied in the debate.  In addition, it makes perfect sense that academics find more pleasure in pursuing the money, rather than accurate data....going with the flow, in order to maintain relevancy. 
I would be very interested if you could post links about global warming deniers being actually assassinated! But less interested in links about character assassination. It happens, yeah. Sometimes for good reason, sometimes for not. I sympathize with the latter.  :sad:

    As for the bit about academics... you obviously aren't familiar with the cut-throat world of academic publishing. If you can prove that so-and-so's paper is fabricated, it'll be a huge feather in your cap. Papers are thoroughly reviewed, and a paper that has been deliberately falsified is basically just a chunk of bloody meat in a tank full of starving sharks waiting to make their name and career in the scientific community (pardon the mixed metaphor).

This is not because I am a partisan hack....while I lean more towards a conservative mindset, that actually entails the notion of conserving liberty, not progressively destroying it.  As I have said before, I am an independent.
Glad to hear it. Blind partisanship is disgusting.

When I see dangerous politicians in the word, hammering on the "Global Warming", "Climate Change", "Meat is bad", etc, etc....my instincts suggest that they lying ...in bed with many parts of academia, trying to exercise its will on the population. 
   In this day and age, the problems and solutions we deal with are counter-intuitive.
   A baby will instinctively fear spiders, loud noises, the colour red etc, but will happily jab forks in electrical outlets despite it being shockingly dangerous. Technology (and its problems) has outpaced instinctual understanding.
   Gut-feelings, hunches, suspicions, and instinct have very little bearing on climate change, a hideously complicated issue. Compounding this is that this phenomenon is occurring  at a planetary scale. As with quantum mechanics, it is a scale that humans are just not wired to easily understand.   

Can you, or anyone else here, actually compile and read climate data, then present it in correct form?  I am willing to bet not. However, if there are folks here that can, despite NOT having majored in the fields of Geology or Meteorology, then the argument of Coleman's lack of credentials falls off the fence, completely.  Why?  Because one does not have to be a music major to know and understand how chord progressions work.  One does not have to major in History to understand the narratives behind WW1.  One does not have to have a complete academic background in meteorology  to understand humidity, high/low pressure systems, etc. 
    Actually, I *did* major in climatology/geomorphology, and spent many sad weekends reading and compiling climate data!
    Funny story: we strapped a hockey stick to the front of my friend's car and mounted a horribly expensive infrared thermometer to the end of it, then drove through most of Vancouver in the middle of the night trying to get a thermal profile of the valley. We got pulled over twice because of it.  :laugh:
     Presumably, the problem with Coleman is that he, a layman, is contradicting the research of thousands of people who have a very deep understanding of the issue.
    I mean, sure, he might be right (it's happened before) but it's pretty darn unlikely.
   
At one time, didn't the American Tobacco Company, aligned with "science" insist smoking was not dangerous? 
    Exactly. And then we did more research into the matter and discovered that it killed people in a variety of very unpleasant ways. Time, technology, and changes in social priorities often results in old understandings being overturned. Just as our increasing understanding of climate is making the scientific community increasingly worried about the human effects on global climate.

How often does the weather channel actually get their forecasts right ,anyway?  That must be the best job...be wrong most of the time and still not get fired...so, why would anyone want to fully invest an affirmative belief in all of this/ whilst knowing that if the sheeple carry on, our way of live will be worse.
   As most of us are aware, weather forecasts are exercises in probabilities.
   If the forecast states that there is a 5% chance for precipitation, and then omg, it's raining!, then the forecast isn't wrong: it's just that the unlikely happened.
   Weather is chaotic: one can predict general trends, but pinning down the exact details of how things will be 5 days from now is incredibly difficult.
   However, the accuracy of these forecasts have increased substantially over the years. The three day forecasts for hurricane tracking are more accurate today than the 1 day forecasts back in the 70s and 80s.  Regular weather forecasts have improved even more dramatically.
   Likewise, our understanding of global climatic systems like Hadley Cells, the Pacific Gyre, El Nino, etc etc.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2019, 11:40:55 am by kyndo »


  • kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • 5272

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #70 on: October 08, 2019, 02:36:54 pm »
Also:



:laugh:


  • oglop
  • The Legend

    • 2338

    • August 25, 2011, 07:24:54 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #71 on: October 09, 2019, 10:48:09 am »


  • LIC
  • Super Waygook

    • 352

    • February 15, 2019, 04:39:00 pm
    • NE Hemisphere
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #72 on: October 09, 2019, 12:27:50 pm »
8 1/2 years until doomsday's tipping point?

Good. I look forward to it. At least that will stop the whingers.


  • LIC
  • Super Waygook

    • 352

    • February 15, 2019, 04:39:00 pm
    • NE Hemisphere
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #73 on: October 12, 2019, 10:15:51 am »
https://ca.yahoo.com/news/ethiopian-pm-wins-nobel-peace-101559713.html

Well, they got this one right anyway. I can well imagine the self-righteous indignation of the sheeple who worship her.


  • stoat
  • Super Waygook

    • 251

    • March 05, 2019, 06:36:13 pm
    • seoul
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #74 on: October 12, 2019, 10:26:37 am »
Quote
Well, they got this one right anyway. I can well imagine the self-righteous indignation of the sheeple who worship her.

No, apparently it's Alt-right white men who are still angry because they now have nothing to rant about. :rolleyes:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/11/greta-abiy-ahmed-nobel-peace-prize


Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #75 on: October 12, 2019, 10:27:42 am »
https://youtu.be/fFkN5H4CCY0

These people are only slightly less hypocritical than Bill Cosby.

At least Cosby was funny, though.


  • stoat
  • Super Waygook

    • 251

    • March 05, 2019, 06:36:13 pm
    • seoul
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #76 on: October 12, 2019, 10:30:11 am »
Having a spot of lunch


  • NorthStar
  • Expert Waygook

    • 627

    • July 05, 2017, 10:54:06 am
    • Munsan
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #77 on: October 12, 2019, 01:25:21 pm »
Hmmm...


  • oglop
  • The Legend

    • 2338

    • August 25, 2011, 07:24:54 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #78 on: October 12, 2019, 01:32:34 pm »
have you got the sources which actually state those headlines, northstar?


  • NorthStar
  • Expert Waygook

    • 627

    • July 05, 2017, 10:54:06 am
    • Munsan
Re: Greta Go Home
« Reply #79 on: October 12, 2019, 02:14:26 pm »
have you got the sources which actually state those headlines, northstar?

crap..what I forgot to add that it would really be inconvenient if all of those things happened right now.

in regards to sources...search them out yourself.