Liberal's Climate $cience = FAILURE

[The Green Barbarian]

Justin Trudeau is a science experiment gone bad.

Klimate Kray-Kray is falling out of favour as more and more people are realizing that bankrupting themselves to pay billions in carbon taxes for no effect on climate is just plain stupidity.

BUT.....we have to do SOMETHING....even if that means bankrupting our country...all in the name of the...GRANDCHILDREN!!

[Spiff]

The question that comes to my mind is that if the credible science is overwhelmingly supportive of ACC as a negative influence on our collective future, what is the motivation behind those who continue to deny this ?

Well, according to Ryan Beitler in this article, either they see harming the environment as a profitable business, or they are simply sociopaths, (https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/ ... nge-denial).

[The Green Barbarian]

Well, according to Ryan Beitler in this article, either they see harming the environment as a profitable business, or they are simply sociopaths, (https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/ ... nge-denial).

Ryan Beitler seems to be a pretty stupid and gullible guy, whose main job is to keep selling this stupid myth.

[Spiff]

Well, according to Ryan Beitler in this article, either they see harming the environment as a profitable business, or they are simply sociopaths, (https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/ ... nge-denial).

Ryan Beitler seems to be a pretty stupid and gullible guy, whose main job is to keep selling this stupid myth.

"Seems to be?"

[Gone_Fishin]

What do Canadians think of Trudeau's "plan?"

Gas guzzlers deliver for GM:

Even as General Motors (GM) spends billions on its electric vehicles, it was the gas guzzlers that delivered in the quarter. Sales of SUVs and trucks helped drive a hat trick quarter: sales and earnings beat expectations and GM raised its profit forecast.

[Veovis]

What do Canadians think of Trudeau's "plan?"

Gas guzzlers deliver for GM:

Even as General Motors (GM) spends billions on its electric vehicles, it was the gas guzzlers that delivered in the quarter. Sales of SUVs and trucks helped drive a hat trick quarter: sales and earnings beat expectations and GM raised its profit forecast.

Well I didn't recall GM doing dumb ad campaigns myself, what did they do...oh right make a product that could work hard and get things done. Now I understand why the left hates that concept they prefer the electric

Electric vs the guzzler
Environmental impact - same...but you get to pretend it isn't and be really really smug.
Child slavery for parts - the tastiest part to lefties.
Can't go far - love it
Can't work as hard - love it more.

It's everything they could desire....but most Canadians work, so GM sold stuff that works....funny that.

[The Green Barbarian]

What do Canadians think of Trudeau's "plan?"

Well I didn't recall GM doing dumb ad campaigns myself, what did they do...oh right make a product that could work hard and get things done. Now I understand why the left hates that concept they prefer the electric

Electric vs the guzzler
Environmental impact - same...but you get to pretend it isn't and be really really smug.
Child slavery for parts - the tastiest part to lefties.
Can't go far - love it
Can't work as hard - love it more.

It's everything they could desire....but most Canadians work, so GM sold stuff that works....funny that.

They also like getting free stuff like free parking and free use of roadways that they are contributing zip to building and maintaining. The Lefties just love that.

[Salistala]

LOL - nope. I don't have a "default" scientist. I'm just going to keep "following the science" and the science definitely says that man-made climate change is a total fraud.

So.prove it then, quote the science that definitely says ACC is a 'total fraud'

When I say quote, I mean reference actual scientific articles that reach the same.conclusions as you.

If you can't, then it isn't science it's just opinion

[Salistala]

Dude - man made climate change doesn't exist. Let it go already.

Don't......Call....Me..Dude
(that's for you Scatterbrains out there)

Two reasons I won't let you go


First, throughout most of this thread you're arguing with JLives about whether your source for scientific knowledge is actual science or a blog post cherry picking science talking points.

And as evidence that you follow science too, you bring up Tol AGAIN and a cherry picked quote from him that he disputes the IPCC.

But that's your paper thin analysis when you fail to look into what Tol means about the IPCC. Because, as far as I can tell, his dispute arises from a difference of opinion over the positive/negative consequences of ACC.

So I naturally think you don't read the science, I think you're being manipulated by the petroleum industry lobbyists that are doing whatever they can to maintain the status quo and the billions rolling in. (Current gross revenue from oil is approx $2.6 trillion a year; 110 million barrels a day x 365 days x $80/barrel) What kind of leftist bankroll can compete with that?

I love it when the status quo conspiracy theorists keep bleating about 'follow the money!' when criticizing the science like there's some source of dark science money that could somehow compete with petro-trillions

Second, there's a contingent of conservative posters on these forums that are constantly justifying the colonial takeover of the indigenous North Americans by sayi g we were stone age people and therefore too inferior to claim sovereignty over these territories.

These posters, and I don't know if you are one of them, imply that colonial superiority in science and technology is the reason their claims to the Americas carry more weight than indigenous time of occupation to these territories.

So, if you're going to dismiss what science and technology say about the ever increasing global temperatures, and instead rely on what your gut says; how are you any different from my 'ignorant' ancestors?

And a post script, if you're going to quote a source make sure you read what they actually say instead of what some petro-executive says they said. Because if you don't I will, and if they publish science that disagrees with your take I will be here to remind you.

[Salistala]

A couple quotes from the study article.

"Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community, we have drawn researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements about ACC."

Sounds like cherry picking to me.

"Citation and publication analyses must be treated with caution in inferring scientific credibility"

As Jlabute mentioned, accepted science is not based on a popularity contest but on repeatable results which, we don't have.

"Materials and Methods
We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and clas-
sified each researcher as either convinced by the evidence (CE)
for anthropogenic climate change or unconvinced by the evidence
(UE) for ACC. We compiled these CE researchers compre-
hensively (i.e., all names listed) from the following lists: IPCC
AR4 Working Group I Contributors (coordinating lead authors,
lead authors, and contributing authors; 619 names listed), 2007
Bali Declaration (212 signers listed), Canadian Meteorological
and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) 2006 statement (120 names
listed), CMOS 2008 statement (130 names listed), and 37 signers
of open letter protesting The Great Global Warming Swindle film
errors. After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had
a total of 903 names.
We define UE researchers as those who have signed reputable
statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We
compiled UE names comprehensively from the following 12 lists:
1992 statement from the Science and Environmental Policy
Project (46 names), 1995 Leipzig Declaration (80 names), 2002
letter to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien (30 names),
2003 letter to Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin (46 names),
2006 letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (61
names), 2007 letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (100
names), 2007 TV film The Great Global Warming Swindle in-
terviewees (17 names), NIPCC: 2008 Heartland Institute docu-
ment “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate," ed. S.
Fred Singer (24 listed contributors), 2008 Manhattan Declara-
tion from a conference in New York City (206 names listed as
qualified experts), 2009 newspaper ad by the Cato Institute
challenging President Obama’s stance on climate change (115
signers), 2009 Heartland Institute document “Climate Change
Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (NIPCC)” (36 authors), and 2009 letter to the
American Physical Society (61 names). After removing duplicate
names across these lists, we had a total of 472 names. Links to
source documents are available at http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/
∼prall/climate/list_sources.html."

This is their method for determining the researchers to use in this analysis. If you can propose a better method I would be glad to hear it.

For me, this seems a valid method for selecting the most authoritative voices in both the convinced of ACC and unconvinced.

Cherry picking? They selected the researchers that put their reputations on the line in both camps. And I would expect that there would some internal discussions in both camps about who they would want with the most authority representing their position publicly.

And read my words again where I said 'expertise' was determined by citation. I don't say that, I said they determined 'expertise' by number of published papers and 'prominence' was determined by citation.

You call that a popularity contest? I call it common sense

Are you suggesting that a fledgling scientist that just published their first undergrad paper cited by no one should have the same authority as a lifelong scientist whose scientific conclusions are referenced by many?

And you call this science based on a popularity contest, this isn't the science that the climate scientists use to support their conclusions on ACC, this is a survey to give weight to the authority to the voices speaking on climate change.

And lastly, you say that this methodology cannot be replicated? Seems simple, go out and collect every name you want that published on climate change either for or against, count how many papers each has published, then count the citations for their top 4 cited papers. Then ask each the 2 questions; world hotter now than before industrial revolution? are people responsible?

Now rank each researcher in terms of number published and number cited and see how their ranking relates to belief/disbelief of ACC

Easy study to prove or disprove these results

An undertone to your critique of the methodology of this survey is that somehow the unconvinced are underrepresented in this study and I want to know why you think that.

Those names from the Cato Institute, Heritage Institute, the Leipzig Declaration, the Manhattan Declaration, and the signatories to the letter to Presidents and the UN

They all.had opportunities to participate in the survey, they weren't selected out

Want to get a more 'realistic' result? One that aligns more with your ideology? Then go out and do it, there doesn't seem to be any reason why anyone can't do it. The methodology is simple, looks pretty cheap to do

[77TA]

A couple quotes from the study article.

"Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community, we have drawn researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements about ACC."

Sounds like cherry picking to me.

"Citation and publication analyses must be treated with caution in inferring scientific credibility"

As Jlabute mentioned, accepted science is not based on a popularity contest but on repeatable results which, we don't have.

"Materials and Methods
We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and clas-
sified each researcher as either convinced by the evidence (CE)
for anthropogenic climate change or unconvinced by the evidence
(UE) for ACC. We compiled these CE researchers compre-
hensively (i.e., all names listed) from the following lists: IPCC
AR4 Working Group I Contributors (coordinating lead authors,
lead authors, and contributing authors; 619 names listed), 2007
Bali Declaration (212 signers listed), Canadian Meteorological
and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) 2006 statement (120 names
listed), CMOS 2008 statement (130 names listed), and 37 signers
of open letter protesting The Great Global Warming Swindle film
errors. After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had
a total of 903 names.
We define UE researchers as those who have signed reputable
statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We
compiled UE names comprehensively from the following 12 lists:
1992 statement from the Science and Environmental Policy
Project (46 names), 1995 Leipzig Declaration (80 names), 2002
letter to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien (30 names),
2003 letter to Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin (46 names),
2006 letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (61
names), 2007 letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (100
names), 2007 TV film The Great Global Warming Swindle in-
terviewees (17 names), NIPCC: 2008 Heartland Institute docu-
ment “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate," ed. S.
Fred Singer (24 listed contributors), 2008 Manhattan Declara-
tion from a conference in New York City (206 names listed as
qualified experts), 2009 newspaper ad by the Cato Institute
challenging President Obama’s stance on climate change (115
signers), 2009 Heartland Institute document “Climate Change
Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (NIPCC)” (36 authors), and 2009 letter to the
American Physical Society (61 names). After removing duplicate
names across these lists, we had a total of 472 names. Links to
source documents are available at http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/
∼prall/climate/list_sources.html."

This is their method for determining the researchers to use in this analysis. If you can propose a better method I would be glad to hear it.

Well for starters, they could try using an equal number of UE and CE people instead of doubling up on the CE right from the start. Gee, I wonder how that poll is going to turn out?

For me, this seems a valid method for selecting the most authoritative voices in both the convinced of ACC and unconvinced.

Cherry picking? They selected the researchers that put their reputations on the line in both camps. And I would expect that there would some internal discussions in both camps about who they would want with the most authority representing their position publicly.

And read my words again where I said 'expertise' was determined by citation. I don't say that, I said they determined 'expertise' by number of published papers and 'prominence' was determined by citation.

You call that a popularity contest? I call it common sense

Are you suggesting that a fledgling scientist that just published their first undergrad paper cited by no one should have the same authority as a lifelong scientist whose scientific conclusions are referenced by many?

I didn't see the part where they gave out each individual scientist's career length, did I miss that?

And you call this science based on a popularity contest, this isn't the science that the climate scientists use to support their conclusions on ACC, this is a survey to give weight to the authority to the voices speaking on climate change.

And lastly, you say that this methodology cannot be replicated? Seems simple, go out and collect every name you want that published on climate change either for or against, count how many papers each has published, then count the citations for their top 4 cited papers. Then ask each the 2 questions; world hotter now than before industrial revolution? are people responsible?

Now rank each researcher in terms of number published and number cited and see how their ranking relates to belief/disbelief of ACC

Belief/disbelief is not science.

Easy study to prove or disprove these results

An undertone to your critique of the methodology of this survey is that somehow the unconvinced are underrepresented in this study and I want to know why you think that.

Those names from the Cato Institute, Heritage Institute, the Leipzig Declaration, the Manhattan Declaration, and the signatories to the letter to Presidents and the UN

They all.had opportunities to participate in the survey, they weren't selected out

Want to get a more 'realistic' result? One that aligns more with your ideology? Then go out and do it, there doesn't seem to be any reason why anyone can't do it. The methodology is simple, looks pretty cheap to do

I agree, it should be quite simple to manufacture a survey to show the results of whatever one wants. The proof of that is right here with this one. That's not in my scope but that doesn't mean I have to accept this malarkey.

[The Green Barbarian]

Don't......Call....Me..Dude
(that's for you Scatterbrains out there)

Two reasons I won't let you go

Dude...let me go. Man-made climate change is a fraud. There's nothing more to be said. Dude, you're being had. Time to wake up, and stop being a pawn in this fraudulent game.

[The Green Barbarian]

So.prove it then, quote the science that definitely says ACC is a 'total fraud'

Prove that it isn't, while reaching for everyone's wallet. You can't. I'm not reaching for people's wallets, only the gullible fools who want to "believe" in this garbage are reaching for wallets, and deliberately causing human suffering because of it. Man-made climate change is a total fraud.

[harblz]

Well for starters, they could try using an equal number of UE and CE people instead of doubling up on the CE right from the start. Gee, I wonder how that poll is going to turn out?

Yes "both sidesing" it is certainly the best way: if 1,000,000 are convinced and 1 is not, then you must choose one of each and conduct a poll that shows 50% are unconvinced.

[Salistala]

Well for starters, they could try using an equal number of UE and CE people instead of doubling up on the CE right from the start. Gee, I wonder how that poll is going to turn out?

Yes "both sidesing" it is certainly the best way: if 1,000,000 are convinced and 1 is not, then you must choose one of each and conduct a poll that shows 50% are unconvinced.

You can lead a person to knowledge, but you cannot make them think