Classy Angel
Montreal Escorts

Climate change

jalimon

I am addicted member
Dec 28, 2015
6,251
166
63
Again, I go back to the HIV controversy of the 1980s as being more analogous to the global warming controversy, because the lies are being spread by one of the dominant political parties in the US, and even more effectively by FOX News. So, I can see why lots of otherwise intelligent people can be deceived by party propaganda and big energy funded pseudoscience.

Shoot and all my life I tough Aids was developed in America to decimate the population of shit hole African countries. You mean I was wrong?

;)
 

Sol Tee Nutz

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2012
7,675
1,523
113
Look behind you.
I'll go chat with Sol Tree Nutz instead!:Cry:

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.
 

Bred Sob

New Member
Jan 17, 2012
969
3
0
Did you read my posts re the two primary people you cited: Jennifer Marohasy and Ivar Giaever? They are both funded by Big Energy and/or Big Tobacco.

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.
 
Jun 15, 2015
549
3
0
Who knows
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?
 

TheJames101

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2017
1,016
1,554
113
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.

sarcasm is unbecoming when there's nothing to support its usage
 

Sol Tee Nutz

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2012
7,675
1,523
113
Look behind you.
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
 

anon_vlad

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2004
1,551
526
113
Visit site
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

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"
 

Bred Sob

New Member
Jan 17, 2012
969
3
0
That foundation is funded by surprise, surprise anonymous donors who comprise only 1.5% of their membership and has ties to Exxon.

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/
 

Bred Sob

New Member
Jan 17, 2012
969
3
0
The very definition of pseudoscience.

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.
 

Bred Sob

New Member
Jan 17, 2012
969
3
0
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.
 

Bred Sob

New Member
Jan 17, 2012
969
3
0
You consistently decline to cite any scientific evidence nor apolitical scientific organizations to support your position.

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.
 

Sol Tee Nutz

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2012
7,675
1,523
113
Look behind you.
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.
 

Sol Tee Nutz

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2012
7,675
1,523
113
Look behind you.
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.
 

jalimon

I am addicted member
Dec 28, 2015
6,251
166
63
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,
 

Bred Sob

New Member
Jan 17, 2012
969
3
0
The thing is this whole climate change is already a thing of the past.

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.
 

Sol Tee Nutz

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2012
7,675
1,523
113
Look behind 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.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts