Climate change
- Thread starter Sol Tee Nutz
- Start date
Yeah... My take on climate scientists ( not all ). Many people looking for a job, see the media boom in climate change, all are for it and the against are ridiculed. Why not go with the flow when peer reviews are guaranteed. If government funding was the same for proving that humans are not the cause ( for tax purposes ) youbwould see a flow changing their papers.
Again, just my opinion as many predictions by " scientists " have been false.
It must sound disappointing to you, but shooting at moving targets is not my favorite sport. I never mentioned Jennifer Marohasy as a scientist, let alone a scientist disputing climate theories. I cited her blog post to get a list of scientists who do dispute it. Probably this distinction is too subtle for you, I get it. Life is tough.
You never presented any evidence that Ivar Giaever is "on the payroll of the Republican Party or Big Energy". You did, however, repeat an old (and many times debunked) lie that he is somehow connected to the "Big Tobacco". We have indeed established that he might have had an ashtray on his desk at some point.
And speaking of science and scientific methods (thank you again for the eloquent soliloquy, however misplaced!): have you by any chance heard of this pesky thing called "logic"? You made the sweeping accusation that "The only scientists who dispute it are on the payroll of the Republican Party or Big Energy". Even if you had presented any damning evidence of Ivar Giaever's sins (which you obviously failed to do), would that have proved your blanket accusation that all skeptics are guilty of venality? I don't think so, but again, that might be too subtle for you.
If you had any evidence to back up your blatantly false smear, you would have presented at least part of it by now. It is perfectly clear that you have none.
Bred, what is your point though? Basing your ideology on 7% of climate change scientists deniers? Is that not a loosing proposition?
What spurs you to think that 93-97% of the present researchers are wrong? Let’s hear your side of the story?
What spurs you to think that 93-97% of the present researchers are wrong? Let’s hear your side of the story?
Sorry, not at this time. My deal with the Republican Party and/or Big Energy is not yet finalized. Can not jeopardize the ongoing negotiations.
I agree (sort of), sometimes it could be misplaced. Quite often though it seems to be the only reasonable way to contribute to the "discussion".
Here is a good read on climate change. This is just one link which has a more complete history of Harold Lewis. Google his name and you will find more detailed info. About the " scientists " who are on the pro climate change side.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lewis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lewis
Did you see this:
Within days of his APS resignation it was announced that Dr.Lewis had become a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
That foundation is funded by surprise, surprise anonymous donors who comprise only 1.5% of their membership and has ties to Exxon.
Here's a quote from the wikipedia article about that foundation:
In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".[19] The blog Carbon Brief analyzed them, and found that -
9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil
"prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past"
This article is quite long, skimmed through many pages, interesting.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sour...WMAF6BAgIEAE&usg=AOvVaw3prWlTw99fyV0bNCCB5OlF
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sour...WMAF6BAgIEAE&usg=AOvVaw3prWlTw99fyV0bNCCB5OlF
Of course. Everyone is aware of that. With a possible exception of "that foundation" (GWPF) itself:
In order to make clear its complete independence, it [GWPF] does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.
https://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/
Right. The bastards are associated with someone who had the gall to fund attacks against Bill Clinton. Their output does not even deserve to be called "pseudoscience".
If you don't mind me asking, have you at least once made an effort to look into the substance itself -- before launching an ad hominem attack against people associated with the authors (or publishers in this case)? A time-saving approach indeed.
You may or may not believe me, but I actually appreciate one persistent thread running through your posts -- where you make it clear that whether or not one agrees with the existence of the so called "scientific consensus" on climate theories is purely a matter of one's politics, it has nothing to do with science. This is honest. Your attempts to refer to science once in a while sound much less convincing to me.
In any case, thank you for your response. And while we are at it, could you perhaps clue me in as to where does the figure 97% (of climate scientists supposedly marching with the herd) come from. I do, though, have a conjecture myself. It is a well-known scientific fact that 73.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
I don't accept your challenge as I find it ridiculous beyond belief. Science is furthered by people, not committees or panels. And not by voting either.
In any case, thank you for your response. And while we are at it, could you perhaps clue me in as to where does the figure 97% (of climate scientists supposedly marching with the herd) come from. I do, though, have a conjecture myself. It is a well-known scientific fact that 73.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
I don't accept your challenge as I find it ridiculous beyond belief. Science is furthered by people, not committees or panels. And not by voting either.
Speaking of misrepresenting statements and beliefs... As a matter of fact, I never once stated "my position", quite deliberately so. Except maybe on the (rather marginal) question as to which party controlled the Presidency in 2014 -- 2016. And I did of course challenge the vicious baseless attack against hundreds (perhaps thousands) of scientists when you accused them of venality.
Well, I guess I will try to explain why I refused to be drawn into discussions of the climate science itself. Unlike the majority of other contributors to this thread, who obviously hold advanced degrees in climatology and related fields and therefore possess all the final answers, this is not exactly my area of expertise. My familiarity with the subject is rather limited. I did at some point get interested in attempts to derive workable climate models from the basic equations of fluid dynamics, mostly Navier-Stokes equations (with some bells and whistles). To my knowledge, no one succeeded in that, which (from the point of view of underlying mathematics) did not surprise me one bit. In the process, I did get a (rather limited) idea of how incredibly difficult this science is and how little is currently known. And this is pretty much the extent of my knowledge. No way I could consider myself an expert, however I believe I learned enough to realize how laughable the notion of any "consensus" in climate science is. It is as though we tried to claim consensus on the inner workings of a modern computer having barely mastered Ohm's law.
At the same time, I also learned that quite a few honest scientists chose to leave this field so as not to have to deal with incredible corruption that has unfortunately taken commanding positions. STN mentioned one of them earlier. This is incredibly sad, as this is obviously a critically important area of research. But who would indeed like to have as "colleagues" all kinds of luminaries ranging from cheap crooks like Al Gore to outright criminals like Michael Mann (the renowned climate warrior of the "hockey stick" fame who falsely claimed he was awarded the Nobel Prize). This is in fact a huge loss for science.
As a good-will gesture, I will ignore the other points you are making.
GMA.... Can this saying " Follow the money trail " only a one way statement or can it be applied on both sides. We all know that the governments will not fund any group against the climate hysteria.
Repeating myself but I agree that climate is changing, my concern is how much is embellished for tax purposes and how many low income families can not afford the extra taxes which will do nothing to improve the GHG / air quality issues..
Back to the scientists. Let's say Walmart is selling an item that they claim is superior to all and hire people to prove it correct, then a small mom and dad store have different findings and want to hire people to prove the Walmart item is exaggerated, who will the majority of people work for.
Back to the scientists. Let's say Walmart is selling an item that they claim is superior to all and hire people to prove it correct, then a small mom and dad store have different findings and want to hire people to prove the Walmart item is exaggerated, who will the majority of people work for.
Nice post GMA!
The thing is this whole climate change is already a thing of the past. It's already too late and we know it. What we need to focus on is reduce our ecological imprint to a minimum. And reduce population growth. There is a limit to what this small planet can take. Perhaps the anti-vaccines movement got it right after all?
Cheers,
The thing is this whole climate change is already a thing of the past. It's already too late and we know it. What we need to focus on is reduce our ecological imprint to a minimum. And reduce population growth. There is a limit to what this small planet can take. Perhaps the anti-vaccines movement got it right after all?
Cheers,
This is a really dangerous and irresponsible thing to say. "This whole climate change" is the only truly dependable feature of modern life. Of course, you are right pointing out that it's already too late, but it gets worse and worse every day nonetheless. Say, yesterday we only had 12 years to go, and today it must be 10.5 or 8.
Frankly, I expected better of you.
For the tax ( gas increase ) how will that stop climate change, do you think people will drive less? The poor supposedly get a tax rebate so they will continue to drive, the rich will not give a fuck so they will continue to drive.
The best canada can do is invent something to slow down what countries like India and China are doing and China recently gave fuck you to all saying they will not slow down.
The western world's population is slowing due to the high cost of living, perhaps when we are bankrupt we will fuck more and have kids.
The best canada can do is invent something to slow down what countries like India and China are doing and China recently gave fuck you to all saying they will not slow down.
The western world's population is slowing due to the high cost of living, perhaps when we are bankrupt we will fuck more and have kids.
Similar threads
