More Climate BS...

#3,401
#3,401
85SugarVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s a pretty cynical take without any actionable substance.
 
#3,402
#3,402
hog88 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the source of funding.

Your assumption of a lack of ethics amongst the scientific community as a whole is one I do not share. Maybe if you worked amongst them you would be the one changing your tune 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
#3,403
#3,403
OHvol40 said:
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the source of funding.

Your assumption of a lack of ethics amongst the scientific community as a whole is one I do not share. Maybe if you worked amongst them you would be the one changing your tune 🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...

Scientists are no different than any other employee, they'll produce the results their boss wants. Nothing unethical about being a good employee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and GroverCleveland
#3,404
#3,404
OHvol40 said:
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the source of funding.

Your assumption of a lack of ethics amongst the scientific community as a whole is one I do not share. Maybe if you worked amongst them you would be the one changing your tune 🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...
what if working amongst them changes the tune in the opposite direction?

when was the last time you heard anybody bring up passive ideas? Actual passive ideas. they exist, they are out there, but they aren't part of the equation. what about the question/comments I had earlier asking about averages and mini-Ice Age. There are plenty of topics that are carefully avoided by your scientists to avoid upsetting the applecart.

you asked earlier for people to engage with that report, and when I did, you had no response to the actual questions I had with the actual science. actual science, if you practiced it, would have engaged in an honest conversation with my questions. but you have so far refused.

heck you didn't even answer if you had read that same report, or followed up on any of the citations. I guess you expect as to do as you say and not what you actually do.
 
#3,405
#3,405
hndog609 said:
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.
Click to expand...
OHvol40 said:
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
Click to expand...
Anything based on consensus is crap. Science doesn't do consensus. It is or it isn't. Facts! Consensus is how you pick an Oscar winner. One fact can destroy a thousand opinions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, marcusluvsvols and hog88
#3,408
#3,408
LouderVol said:
what if working amongst them changes the tune in the opposite direction?

when was the last time you heard anybody bring up passive ideas? Actual passive ideas. they exist, they are out there, but they aren't part of the equation. what about the question/comments I had earlier asking about averages and mini-Ice Age. There are plenty of topics that are carefully avoided by your scientists to avoid upsetting the applecart.

you asked earlier for people to engage with that report, and when I did, you had no response to the actual questions I had with the actual science. actual science, if you practiced it, would have engaged in an honest conversation with my questions. but you have so far refused.

heck you didn't even answer if you had read that same report, or followed up on any of the citations. I guess you expect as to do as you say and not what you actually do.
Click to expand...
Do you have any proof of the bolded, or are you just assuming?

I’m sorry if I missed earlier posts, I’m multi-tasking at the moment. Yes, I read most of the report, just as I had the previous others. What are you refuting that’s in the report(s)?
 
#3,412
#3,412
OHvol40 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't fault someone for their beliefs. You have conviction about the field of climate studies. No sweat off my brow. Live and let live.
But these words mean things. And we toss them around as if there is interchangeability in them.
scientific = based on methods or principles of science.

scientific conclusion = summary of the data which explicitly states the data supports or rejects the hypothesis.

The observation, the analysis, the collection of data can all be scientific. But that doesn't mean we have scientific conclusion. As an illustration, if you are prescribed a new drug and you learn the computer modeling shows it to be safe and effective, are you inclined to take it or do you want the gold standard of double blind testing before it goes in your body?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#3,413
#3,413
OHvol40 said:
Do you have any proof of the bolded, or are you just assuming?

I’m sorry if I missed earlier posts, I’m multi-tasking at the moment. Yes, I read most of the report, just as I had the previous others. What are you refuting that’s in the report(s)?
Click to expand...
I don't see anything bolded in this response.

I am going back to one of the first things from today's conversation, you responded, but nothing about the points I raised. I never refuted that we can test how much CO2 there is, or where it comes from. that is the actual science part of it. what hasn't been scientifically proven is saying the man made part explains it all. even your response notes a key distinction, correlation is not settled science. you/science have a correlation, you have not sufficiently expressed how that correlation can only mean causation. because as I pointed out they threw out two, really the report only included one even though their citation included two, options as straw men to knock down.

and I refute the "direct"ness of the correlation. it is not the 1:1 factor implied. you can post whichever chart/study you want. there is correlation, but I fail to see how anyone can claim its conclusive to the point of making world changing decisions based off of it.

further, they haven't done anything to explain why those 1/2 options are the only possible options. even in the citations, the actual data behind it they only examine those two points to the see what greenhouse gas was generated, and don't look beyond that. they filtered down the experiment variables to such a point they could only generate one outcome. that is bad science.

LouderVol said:
it starts out with the same old tired assumptions. for some reason (probably because the report is locked) I can't crtl+C crtl+V quotes here:

But Page 2-4 right in the introduction it notes that we are two degrees (in freedom units) warmer than we were in the late 1800s. and says there is no known natural process for this. That quote, nor at least the first two citations, even note that we were in a mini-Ice Age before that period. and it seems lazy AF to say there is no natural process that causes the earth to warm.

even in the citations they point out the limitations of what they are looking at. they point out that ONE natural system is likely not the cause of temperature increases, and then just jumps to man made causes. nothing in between. there are apparently only two POSSIBLE causes. "As highlighted in Chapters 2 to 4 of this Report, it is likely that there have been observational changes in the extratropical jets and mid-latitude jet meandering (Section 2.3.1.4.3 and Cross-Chapter Box 10.1). There is low confidence in possible effects of Arctic warming on mid-latitude temperature extremes (Cross-Chapter Box 10.1). A large portion of the multi-decadal changes in extreme temperature remains after the removal of the effect of these modes of variability, and can be attributed to human influence (Kamae et al., 2017b; Wan et al., 2019). " https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/

in that reports Chapter 3, they dismiss TWO natural causes. and says volcanic activity is not a cause for long term change when we know it has been in the past. and even one of their citations states as much.
"These findings indicate that volcanism is a major cause for the deviations between the actual and predicted [Flato et al., 2013] global warming since year 2000."

I certainly don't have time to read the 1800 pages of NCA5, nor all of its citations, but it seems like it starts off with the same assumptions, and ignores the parts of its citations that doesn't fit that predetermined assumption.
Click to expand...

OHvol40 said:
We can track the level of industrialization and the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. They directly correlate. We can track roughly how much greenhouse gases each polluter (vehicles, coal fired plants, etc) release into the atmosphere. We live in a finite container. This isn’t difficult to figure out. There ARE natural process that change the climate, but none that are releasing greenhouse gases like humans do in a matter of decades. If you know of any, I would love to hear about them and point to where the massive release of CO2 into our atmosphere is coming from.
Click to expand...
 
#3,414
#3,414
OHvol40 said:
Yes Confucius. So what facts do you have to bring that destroys opinions?
Click to expand...
You missed the point completely. They are the ones that need to provide you with the facts. They haven't. Instead they dismiss anyone who asks as a "denier". They are making the issue. I'm asking for their proof. They can't or won't supply it. Just opinions.
 
#3,415
#3,415
Volnanza said:
You missed the point completely. They are the ones that need to provide you with the facts. They haven't. Instead they dismiss anyone who asks as a "denier". They are making the issue. I'm asking for their proof. They can't or won't supply it. Just opinions.
Click to expand...

Not to beat a dead horse...but its funny that the same Libs that call you a "science denier" for not believing the CC grift OR double masking when driving alone in your car during Covid are THE same people who completely disregard actual biology when they stare at you straight faced and say "women can have penises" and " men can give birth". Same people.

Then they wonder why normal people dont play along with their delusions and label us "bigots" "racists" "deniers".

The Emperor wears no clothes. He is also over medicated and out of his mind. I am not gonna pretend otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volnanza
#3,417
#3,417
OHvol40 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, they'll change if the money dries up. It will make your head spin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#3,418
#3,418
McDad said:
I don't fault someone for their beliefs. You have conviction about the field of climate studies. No sweat off my brow. Live and let live.
But these words mean things. And we toss them around as if there is interchangeability in them.
scientific = based on methods or principles of science.

scientific conclusion = summary of the data which explicitly states the data supports or rejects the hypothesis.

The observation, the analysis, the collection of data can all be scientific. But that doesn't mean we have scientific conclusion. As an illustration, if you are prescribed a new drug and you learn the computer modeling shows it to be safe and effective, are you inclined to take it or do you want the gold standard of double blind testing before it goes in your body?
Click to expand...
Right, the effects of a new drug are recordable and measurable, including in non-human subjects then you can base decisions off those effects. The same method can’t be used for climate, unless you scale models or model it in a computer based on historical data, then you adjust variables. It’s apples and oranges, no? It’s not like we can use Mars as a climate test subject.
 
#3,421
#3,421
LouderVol said:
I don't see anything bolded in this response.

I am going back to one of the first things from today's conversation, you responded, but nothing about the points I raised. I never refuted that we can test how much CO2 there is, or where it comes from. that is the actual science part of it. what hasn't been scientifically proven is saying the man made part explains it all. even your response notes a key distinction, correlation is not settled science. you/science have a correlation, you have not sufficiently expressed how that correlation can only mean causation. because as I pointed out they threw out two, really the report only included one even though their citation included two, options as straw men to knock down.

and I refute the "direct"ness of the correlation. it is not the 1:1 factor implied. you can post whichever chart/study you want. there is correlation, but I fail to see how anyone can claim its conclusive to the point of making world changing decisions based off of it.

further, they haven't done anything to explain why those 1/2 options are the only possible options. even in the citations, the actual data behind it they only examine those two points to the see what greenhouse gas was generated, and don't look beyond that. they filtered down the experiment variables to such a point they could only generate one outcome. that is bad science.
Click to expand...
The volume of CO2 it takes to increase our ppm to 1.0c would have to come from continuous fossil fuel burning (which is measurable), unless you have noticed dozens of continuously erupting volcanoes that have gone unnoticed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Do you have any examples of something that can can produce 1.5-2 trillion metric tons of CO2 since 1800?
 
#3,422
#3,422
Volnanza said:
You missed the point completely. They are the ones that need to provide you with the facts. They haven't. Instead they dismiss anyone who asks as a "denier". They are making the issue. I'm asking for their proof. They can't or won't supply it. Just opinions.
Click to expand...
Ah, kinda what I thought, another skeptic with no substance. What isn’t being done that should be done to determine the effects of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in your opinion?
 
#3,425
#3,425
hog88 said:
Scientists are no different than any other employee, they'll produce the results their boss wants. Nothing unethical about being a good employee.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that in a HUGE way. The medical community were being "good employees" during the plandemic, and many seemed to completely forget about Hippocrates. You cannot get more unethical than that.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top