More Climate BS...

[OHvol40]

How do you or anyone else know this?

It’s all out there for you to ignore.

 

[hog88]

All great ideas.

That the consensus of climate scientists are not discussing.

 

[OHvol40]

That the consensus of climate scientists are not discussing.

how do you know this hasn’t been discussed?

 

[hog88]

how do you know this hasn’t been discussed?

I don't, they very well may be discussing that among themselves but their bosses sure ain't.

 

[Vol423]

I don't, they very well may be discussing that among themselves but their bosses sure ain't.

Their bosses are busy buying up $10-$25 million luxury beachfront properties.

 

[OHvol40]

I don't, they very well may be discussing that among themselves but their bosses sure ain't.

The problem is that their bosses are stuck being climate deniers, beholden to their major donors who have a huge financial stake in maintaining the status quo as long as possible.

 

[hog88]

The problem is that their bosses are stuck being climate deniers, beholden to their major donors who have a huge financial stake in maintaining the status quo as long as possible.

Now I see why you have a problem. You haven’t figured out who’s paying for the consensus.

 

[85SugarVol]

Are you suggesting every person and department that contributed is insincere, just because they work for the federal government?

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Executive branch reports are naturally colored by the Administration. Your referenced report was from 2023.

The question is fairly simple and straightforward - How would you feel about a report from DHS, DOD, DOE circa 2026?

 

[hndog609]

Agreed and the alarmists refuse to look at anything other than human contributions.

Alarmism/fear propagation is and has been, for a very long time, one of the biggest levers available to pull for moving wealth and influence. The key is at it's very narrowly defined base what's being sold can have some very real elements of truth. The key is in manipulating everything for maximum efficiency in delivery. For instance COVID was real. There was a LOT that went down in the name of COVID that was straight BS.

 

[hog88]

Alarmism/fear propagation is and has been, for a very long time, one of the biggest levers available to pull for moving wealth and influence. The key is at it's very narrowly defined base what's being sold can have some very real elements of truth. The key is in manipulating everything for maximum efficiency in delivery. For instance COVID was real. There was a LOT that went down in the name of COVID that was straight BS.

Read this sometime, sure the report was "fictional". For a piece of fiction it just about hit the nail on the head with climate change.

The Report from Iron Mountain

 

[OHvol40]

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Executive branch reports are naturally colored by the Administration. Your referenced report was from 2023.

The question is fairly simple and straightforward - How would you feel about a report from DHS, DOD, DOE circa 2026?

It’s a simple question based on a fairy tale. I’m using something tangible and you’re contrasting it with something made-up. If you can get all these experts from all these agencies to agree to do a 180 on their reports and research, I’ll gladly rebut. It’s not gonna happen, so it’s a moot point and a straw man.

 

[85SugarVol]

It’s a simple question based on a fairy tale. I’m using something tangible and you’re contrasting it with something made-up. If you can get all these experts from all these agencies to agree to do a 180 on their reports and research, I’ll gladly rebut. It’s not gonna happen, so it’s a moot point and a straw man.

I’m doing nothing of the sort.

I’m simply asking if you would be inclined to believe something commissioned by the current Executive Branch.

But I think it’s pretty clear at this point.

 

[McDad]

Sure did. Softball size hail. The funnel cloud went over my house north of Cincinnati but it hit a lot of houses in my area. Fellow students in my school district were hit. The hardest hit in SW Ohio was north of here in Xenia, OH, east of Dayton

Wow. You and your family were very lucky.

Tornadoes are terrifying.

 

[McDad]

What happens to the ones who dissent with the consensus? They get labeled kooks and corporate shills, the scientists that disagree get shut out.

They are treated like the man who researched cop violence against POCs and found there was no correlation...his peers recommended he bury it. He didn't and was attacked personally and professionally for his data.

 

[McDad]

“Definitions of consensus. noun. agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.”

Aren’t they all? Lol

Science isn't judgement or opinion. That's the problem. It is called climate science. The interpretation of the data is consensus.

Gravity is a scientific reality. No judgement or opinion is required.

 

[OHvol40]

I’m doing nothing of the sort.

I’m simply asking if you would be inclined to believe something commissioned by the current Executive Branch.

But I think it’s pretty clear at this point.

The point that you’re missing is that the actual experts that work on these reports aren’t going to change their tune, it’s basically settled science. If we see a report from this admin, it won’t be a collaborative interdepartmental effort. So, if the people doing the work change their minds, I’ll listen. They aren’t going to though.

This hypothetical is the underpinning of the problem though, the issue has become political because so much $ is at stake… but who actually has our best interests in mind is a question everyone should be asking themselves when consuming climate change info.

 

[OHvol40]

Science isn't judgement or opinion. That's the problem. It is called climate science. The interpretation of the data is consensus.

Gravity is a scientific reality. No judgement or opinion is required.

The people conducting the science are… people who collaborate, discuss, debate to try to form a consensus.

Your example of gravity is an interesting one. When Newton contemplated gravity theories, we gained an understanding about a phenomenon that has always been present, but now it has laws and properties that can be described and tested.

Are you saying that we can’t measure levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, or global temperatures, ocean temperatures, or sea levels, or precipitation patterns, or ice levels at the poles, or strength of storms, or, or, or?

There really is no interpretation of data left to do. Only actionable plans a tracking the outcomes as we are living the experiment.

I mean, the basics aren’t hard to understand.

 

[LouderVol]

The point that you’re missing is that the actual experts that work on these reports aren’t going to change their tune, it’s basically settled science. If we see a report from this admin, it won’t be a collaborative interdepartmental effort. So, if the people doing the work change their minds, I’ll listen. They aren’t going to though.

This hypothetical is the underpinning of the problem though, the issue has become political because so much $ is at stake… but who actually has our best interests in mind is a question everyone should be asking themselves when consuming climate change info.

I guarantee you it isn't anyone who flies in a private jet or has a second/third/fourth home.

 

[hog88]

The point that you’re missing is that the actual experts that work on these reports aren’t going to change their tune, it’s basically settled science. If we see a report from this admin, it won’t be a collaborative interdepartmental effort. So, if the people doing the work change their minds, I’ll listen. They aren’t going to though.

This hypothetical is the underpinning of the problem though, the issue has become political because so much $ is at stake… but who actually has our best interests in mind is a question everyone should be asking themselves when consuming climate change info.

They certainly will change their tune when their paychecks depend on it and do you think the people paying the scientists have our best interests in mind?

 

[McDad]

The people conducting the science are… people who collaborate, discuss, debate to try to form a consensus.

Your example of gravity is an interesting one. When Newton contemplated gravity theories, we gained an understanding about a phenomenon that has always been present, but now it has laws and properties that can be described and tested.

Are you saying that we can’t measure levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, or global temperatures, ocean temperatures, or sea levels, or precipitation patterns, or ice levels at the poles, or strength of storms, or, or, or?

There really is no interpretation of data left to do. Only actionable plans a tracking the outcomes as we are living the experiment.

I mean, the basics aren’t hard to understand.

View attachment 816369

oh boy.
observations and measurments are part of science. Something proven by science means that everyone gets the same results when we follow the same steps. Science doesn't need consensus. Climate "science" does. That's not science.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

This is true. And the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. I do not expect it to stop.

And theres zero proof that mankind has had any effect on our climate whatsoever other than the stuff we REALLY should actually be working on like trash in our freshwater and oceans, and chemical pollution like the "forever chemicals". For every garbage study that began with a predetermined outcome that man was responsible and then collected, fudged and outright falsified data to support that dubious conclusion...there are studies from some of the most reputable scientists in the world showing that there are no effects on our climate whatsoever from human activity.

We have about 200years worth of limited data regarding weather/climate on a planet about 4Billion years old. Any mathematician, or honest scientist, would tell you that trying to draw conclusions from a data set that small is preposterous. Its stupid to the point that dishonesty is implied for those attempting to do so. Its like walking outside tomorrow, looking at a thermometer, then using 1 data point to predict the weather for the next 10,000 years.

From the only longer term data we DO have which are ice cores from glaciers etc, the one conclusion we can draw is that Earth experiences Ice Ages in cycles running predictably thousands of years apart. We are apparently in the warmest part of that cycle between the last Ice Age and the next Ice Age. This has nothing to do with mankind nor any of our machines. The global grift of climate change and the nonsense the Leftists are filling people's heads with are despicable.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

They certainly will change their tune when their paychecks depend on it and do you think the people paying the scientists have our best interests in mind?

oh boy.
observations and measurments are part of science. Something proven by science means that everyone gets the same results when we follow the same steps. Science doesn't need consensus. Climate "science" does. That's not science.

Exactly. Predetermined conclusions on these garbage studies who then make sure the data supports the "Boogey Man" of Climate Change so the checks keep rolling in to the university. Complete BS

 

[85SugarVol]

The point that you’re missing is that the actual experts that work on these reports aren’t going to change their tune, it’s basically settled science. If we see a report from this admin, it won’t be a collaborative interdepartmental effort. So, if the people doing the work change their minds, I’ll listen. They aren’t going to though.

This hypothetical is the underpinning of the problem though, the issue has become political because so much $ is at stake… but who actually has our best interests in mind is a question everyone should be asking themselves when consuming climate change info.

Those in the Man-Made Climate Change industry that would argue science is “settled”, are operating from a position of extreme arrogance imo.

That sentiment is at odds with the most basic mission of “science”.

We continually find hominins popping up in places and times they were never supposed to be, based on our current understanding.

Our knowledge and understanding of the celestial realm continues to change and evolve, new information shattering long held beliefs.

But sure, something as complex as planetary climate change? Yep, settled.

And here’s the really good news - We can fix it by paying more taxes, and ceding more control….. to the State.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

the permafrost is melting because we aren't in a global cooling period, dude. until or unless someone actually addresses the mini-Ice Age and the impact that would have on our assumed "norms" we have purposefully skewed data.

I guess you just skipped over the second part of my statement. that methane wasn't new, and it wasn't due to man. the methane was there and due to nature. science just didn't factor it into their "natural" side of things because it ever so slightly skews the numbers away from it being a man made thing. its very likely, see I avoid the absolutes the "scientists" cling to, that the natural warming would have exposed that methane, or really never trapped it, with or without man.

but because man exists, and we are greater than all things natural, the only allowable assumption is that man caused everything.

Great post.

 

[OHvol40]

oh boy.
observations and measurments are part of science. Something proven by science means that everyone gets the same results when we follow the same steps. Science doesn't need consensus. Climate "science" does. That's not science.

I thinks you’re hitting on the predictive nature of climate change. Sure, we are using computer modeling combined with historical data to determine outcomes, that doesn’t make it any less scientific. If you want to parse out the study of climate history and contrast it with climate forecasting, go ahead. The skepticism of predictions will never cease, and it shouldn’t. We should always question everything… but there are tons of very smart people who have spent years studying this stuff and they are in about as much agreement as people in a predictive field can be.