Climate Change Mega Thread

[rustled]

I’m pretty damn sure (100%) Jlabute is not an uneducated, conspiracy driven and thoughtless poster.

Just the opposite to your suppositions.

I don't think he's dumb or anything like that and I'm sure he knows his way around charts and graphs. He's also not a climate scientist and is unqualified in making scientific determinations. That's why he doesn't link climate science research papers, he links blogs. Playing an expert on the internet does not make it so.

IMO, one of the most impressive accomplishments of climate change alarmism has been to convince millions of people they shouldn't believe what they can easily see with their own eyes unless they are told by a person with a particular designation what to believe about what they see with their own eyes.

The consequence is millions of people who believe ordinary people are not qualified to understand when profiteers are quite clearly manipulating us - and prefer instead to allow the manipulation to continue regardless of the negative consequences for us and the environment.

[JLives]

I don't think he's dumb or anything like that and I'm sure he knows his way around charts and graphs. He's also not a climate scientist and is unqualified in making scientific determinations. That's why he doesn't link climate science research papers, he links blogs. Playing an expert on the internet does not make it so.

IMO, one of the most impressive accomplishments of climate change alarmism has been to convince millions of people they shouldn't believe what they can easily see with their own eyes unless they are told by a person with a particular designation what to believe about what they see with their own eyes.

The consequence is millions of people who believe ordinary people are not qualified to understand when profiteers are quite clearly manipulating us - and prefer instead to allow the manipulation to continue regardless of the negative consequences for us and the environment.

I think it's an impressive accomplishment that people think their internet research means their opinion holds as much weight as someone who's spent years getting an education, doing working research on a topic then having that research published and peer reviewed. Or that people think the people who research the issue are the same people who make the policies on how to deal with and treat it like it's the same thing. Oh wait, I think that's dumb. There are no high fallutin climate scientists.

[The Green Barbarian]

I think it's an impressive accomplishment that people think their internet research means their opinion holds as much weight as someone who's spent years getting an education, doing working research on a topic then having that research published and peer reviewed. Or that people think the people who research the issue are the same people who make the policies on how to deal with and treat it like it's the same thing. Oh wait, I think that's dumb. There are no high fallutin climate scientists.

Every word of this post demonstrates the ignorance that unfortunately infects far too many people in this world, which unfortunately is leading to insanely stupid policy like shutting down Dutch farming and mass investments in wind farms that produce almost no electricity. It's this gullibility and willingness to believe in fairy tales that is causing mass harm right now.

There's a Canadian public company that is drilling for oil in Namibia right now. If they hit on their target, they will enrich the lives of millions of people in that country, with jobs and oil revenue. People who right now are wallowing in poverty, and have wallowed in poverty for centuries. And you know who is trying to stop this company from drilling? NGO's and environmentalist whackjobs, all of whom live in first world countries and who don't have to worry about their five year old daughter being eaten by crocodiles or lions while she walks 5 km every day to get water for her village. And why are these idiots trying to block this project? Well because of the man-made climate change myth of course.

So millions of people are potentially going to be denied a first world living standard because of elitist scumbags living in the lap of luxury making six figure salaries. Where is the sanity in all of this? Why is this stupid myth being allowed to harm so many people in this world? Why can't we worry about clothing and feeding the world's population (something that we could do if we all worked together to accomplish it) rather than continue to block food and oil production that could directly benefit human beings who need it most??

For shame, all you horrible enviros pushing this stupid man-made climate change agenda, and causing so much harm to your fellow man. All because you think "scientists" are telling you the world is going to end. It's not going to end. But it could be a whole lot brighter if we all focused on actual problems instead of made up ones.

[rustled]

IMO, one of the most impressive accomplishments of climate change alarmism has been to convince millions of people they shouldn't believe what they can easily see with their own eyes unless they are told by a person with a particular designation what to believe about what they see with their own eyes.

The consequence is millions of people who believe ordinary people are not qualified to understand when profiteers are quite clearly manipulating us - and prefer instead to allow the manipulation to continue regardless of the negative consequences for us and the environment.

I think it's an impressive accomplishment that people think their internet research means their opinion holds as much weight as someone who's spent years getting an education, doing working research on a topic then having that research published and peer reviewed.

Which was why some of us have given more consideration to the findings of an American climatologist who spent a decade as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has been a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee, who has published over a hundred scientific papers and co-edited several major works.

Whereas others are quite content to rely on information shared via the website of a former cartoonist and web developer who received a PhD degree in cognitive science in 2016, and others of similar qualifications, and folk (apparently including some scientists!) who claim science is "consensus-driven" along with politicians who continue to expect us to disbelieve what we see with our own eyes.

[JLives]

I think it's an impressive accomplishment that people think their internet research means their opinion holds as much weight as someone who's spent years getting an education, doing working research on a topic then having that research published and peer reviewed.

Which was why some of us have given more consideration to the findings of an American climatologist who spent a decade as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has been a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee, who has published over a hundred scientific papers and co-edited several major works.

Whereas others are quite content to rely on information shared via the website of a former cartoonist and web developer who received a PhD degree in cognitive science in 2016, and others of similar qualifications, and folk (apparently including some scientists!) who claim science is "consensus-driven" along with politicians who continue to expect us to disbelieve what we see with our own eyes.

And you are ignoring the consensus of a planet full of climate scientists, from both private and public backgrounds, and sticking with this guy for what reason? It's not because he is saying what you already believe is it? Nah, couldn't be that. You like credentials huh? Here's some credentialed scientists for you: https://www.ipcc.ch/

[rustled]

Which was why some of us have given more consideration to the findings of an American climatologist who spent a decade as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has been a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee, who has published over a hundred scientific papers and co-edited several major works.

Whereas others are quite content to rely on information shared via the website of a former cartoonist and web developer who received a PhD degree in cognitive science in 2016, and others of similar qualifications, and folk (apparently including some scientists!) who claim science is "consensus-driven" along with politicians who continue to expect us to disbelieve what we see with our own eyes.

And you are ignoring the consensus of a planet full of climate scientists, from both private and public backgrounds, and sticking with this guy for what reason? It's not because he is saying what you already believe is it? Nah, couldn't be that. You like credentials huh? Here's some credentialed scientists for you: https://www.ipcc.ch/

I don't like having someone who doesn't know me claiming I don't like credentials. Stooping to making it personal suggests there's no legitimate stance to take. The snarky sarcasm suggests the same.

As I said, some of us will take the findings of an American climatologist who spent a decade as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has been a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee, who has published over a hundred scientific papers and co-edited several major works, over ANYone, including scientists, who claims that science is "consensus-driven".

[JLives]

And you are ignoring the consensus of a planet full of climate scientists, from both private and public backgrounds, and sticking with this guy for what reason? It's not because he is saying what you already believe is it? Nah, couldn't be that. You like credentials huh? Here's some credentialed scientists for you: https://www.ipcc.ch/

I don't like having someone who doesn't know me claim I don't like credentials. Stooping to making it personal suggests there's no legitimate stance to take.

As I said, some of us will take the findings of an American climatologist who spent a decade as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has been a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee, who has published over a hundred scientific papers and co-edited several major works, over ANYone, including scientists, who claims that science is "consensus-driven".

And you'll ignore everyone else because it's not about the credentials. It's about having a biased opinion supported by someone with a degree. If it wasn't that you would concur with the IPCC and NASA findings. There is only ONE reason not to and I just outlined it. If there's another I'm unaware of please outline that for me. Do you have an understanding of how the IPCC and NASA operates?

[rustled]

I don't like having someone who doesn't know me claim I don't like credentials. Stooping to making it personal suggests there's no legitimate stance to take.

As I said, some of us will take the findings of an American climatologist who spent a decade as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has been a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee, who has published over a hundred scientific papers and co-edited several major works, over ANYone, including scientists, who claims that science is "consensus-driven".

And you'll ignore everyone else because it's not about the credentials.

Telling us what rustled will do, again? Doesn't seem to me to be on topic!

It's about having a biased opinion supported by someone with a degree.

Projection, perhaps? Those of us who take the findings of an American climatologist who spent a decade as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has been a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee, who has published over a hundred scientific papers and co-edited several major works, over ANYone, including scientists, who claims that science is "consensus-driven", are not relying on anyone's opinion whether that person has a degree or not.

If it wasn't that you would concur with the IPCC and NASA findings.

Making it personal, again.

There is only ONE reason not to and I just outlined it. If there's another I'm unaware of please outline that for me. Do you have an understanding of how the IPCC and NASA operates?

This isn't about your understanding, or mine. It's not about how the IPCC and NASA operates, and who understands how they operate and who doesn't. It's about climate change. Insisting I must talk about what you want to talk about is pointless hubris - I reject your demands as arbitrary and biased.


Climate change alarmism has done more harm than good.

[alanjh595]

Wooden towers for wind power units coming

https://www.intelligentliving.co/massiv ... footprint/

That's not a very smart idea

Why not?

[The Green Barbarian]

And you are ignoring the consensus of a planet full of climate scientists,

Nope. Because this doesn't exist. There is no "consensus", and this "planet full of climate scientists" you keep referencing don't all agree on the man-made climate change myth. And then of course, there's the whole thing about how none of the predictions that this fake supposed planet full of scientists have made have ever come true. Not ever. It's all been a giant pile of blarney.

Why are we making poor people suffer over fairy tales? It's disgusting.

[JLives]

And you'll ignore everyone else because it's not about the credentials.

Telling us what rustled will do, again? Doesn't seem to me to be on topic!

It's about having a biased opinion supported by someone with a degree.

Projection, perhaps? Those of us who take the findings of an American climatologist who spent a decade as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has been a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee, who has published over a hundred scientific papers and co-edited several major works, over ANYone, including scientists, who claims that science is "consensus-driven", are not relying on anyone's opinion whether that person has a degree or not.

If it wasn't that you would concur with the IPCC and NASA findings.

Making it personal, again.

There is only ONE reason not to and I just outlined it. If there's another I'm unaware of please outline that for me. Do you have an understanding of how the IPCC and NASA operates?

This isn't about your understanding, or mine. It's not about how the IPCC and NASA operates, and who understands how they operate and who doesn't. It's about climate change. Insisting I must talk about what you want to talk about is pointless hubris - I reject your demands as arbitrary and biased.


Climate change alarmism has done more harm than good.

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not a personal attack. Please explain to me why I'm incorrect.

Do you know what the consensus means? It means when all of the papers regarding climate change were categorized it was found that 99% of them had findings that supported that human activities were influencing climate change. These papers came from thousands of climate scientists all over the world, from the majority of different countries and from public and privately funded backgrounds. Some of them were funded by oil companies who were trying to refute climate change but were unable to when looking at the evidence. I am not the person showing bias on this topic. I listen to the experts, I don't choose experts who agree with me. That's the difference.

[The Green Barbarian]

It means when all of the papers regarding climate change were categorized it was found that 99% of them had findings that supported that human activities were influencing climate change.

This literally never happened. What you are parroting is a lie. You are being played for the fool.

[rustled]

Making it personal, again.

This isn't about your understanding, or mine. It's not about how the IPCC and NASA operates, and who understands how they operate and who doesn't. It's about climate change. Insisting I must talk about what you want to talk about is pointless hubris - I reject your demands as arbitrary and biased.


Climate change alarmism has done more harm than good.

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not a personal attack. Please explain to me why I'm incorrect.

It's incorrect and inappropriate to assert "you'll ignore everyone else because it's not about the credentials. It's about having a biased opinion supported by someone with a degree. If it wasn't that you would concur with the IPCC and NASA findings."

Do you know what the consensus means?

It's not up to you to suggest I don't know what "the consensus" means.

It means when all of the papers regarding climate change were categorized it was found that 99% of them had findings that supported that human activities were influencing climate change.

And when we look deeper - if we care to - we find this particular "consensus" was presented to promote the "scary scenarios" and "dramatic statements" narrative.

"The consensus" is NOT what scientists have said ABOUT that consensus. And it is NOT what scientists have actually said ABOUT climate change. It's simply current scientific opinion - and we've often benefited when scientists with doubts kept doing their research and didn't just say "well, that's settled".

These papers came from thousands of climate scientists all over the world, from the majority of different countries and from public and privately funded backgrounds. Some of them were funded by oil companies who were trying to refute climate change but were unable to when looking at the evidence. I am not the person showing bias on this topic. I listen to the experts, I don't choose experts who agree with me. That's the difference.

Accusing me of bias is both personal and pointless. While you've taken a settled stance, mine is still wide open. I'm entirely open to the possibility that the models will suddenly stop failing and we will see the alarmist predictions start coming about.

Are you open to the opposite? Are you open to the possibility that sometime in the not-to-distant future, the scientists you trust most will tell also us climate change is only minimally affected by human activity?

History shows it's often the dissenters who make the most important discoveries. Scientific opinion/consensus has been wrong before, and it will be again. To insist otherwise is pointless pretense.

[hozzle]

That's not a very smart idea

Why not?

did you click the link? (its not a trap)

[Jlabute]

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not a personal attack. Please explain to me why I'm incorrect.

Do you know what the consensus means? It means when all of the papers regarding climate change were categorized it was found that 99% of them had findings that supported that human activities were influencing climate change. These papers came from thousands of climate scientists all over the world, from the majority of different countries and from public and privately funded backgrounds. Some of them were funded by oil companies who were trying to refute climate change but were unable to when looking at the evidence. I am not the person showing bias on this topic. I listen to the experts, I don't choose experts who agree with me. That's the difference.

Science is not about consensus. Having to rely on a consensus is indicative of how feeble an understanding is. Consensus does not give a better understanding of a physical principle. The 97% or 99% consensus "studies", are thoroughly refuted in peer-reviewed journals and have gained notoriety as one of the most dodgy papers. The shoddy computer consensus lie was developed by Cook et al (an individual whose doctorate is in psychology) and latched on to as truth without skepticism or accountability. Cook began with 12000 papers, but rejected 8000 papers which didn't take a position in order to fortify the results he wanted.

Actual surveys have been done which debunk the 97%+ myth.

Cook's 97.2% of papers assumed humans played a role in global warming. That statement was boiled down by media to read 97% of scientists believe we cause climate change. A "role" in global warming could mean 1% for all we know. In reality, Cook et al study means nothing since the data means nothing.

This is similar to how 99% of ALL climate models agree, but, they are all wrong by being too warm, and do not reflect observations. A recent science article I posted proves this.

One should learn to be skeptical when large sums of money and extreme complexities are involved.