Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[Gaidin]

Who is throwing out the baby with the bath water? Would you believe a study funded by big tobacco that says smoking isn't bad for you? Tens of billions in grant money have been given out to further globalist goals in the name of AGW.

In case you unaware Ill fill you in on how these things go: A grant is proposed and submissions are put forward by colleges and institutions to do the study requested. After review, the grant is given and surprise, surprise, the expected result is the study's finding.

You mean like they do in the private industry?

Or more private industry?

Oh wait. Man. You really are so religiously...out there.

Now. I want you to sit down and think about this logically for two minutes if you can pull that off BW. If the data is right. And by all means from what we see in just this thread the data is so far right. If climate change happens the government has some crazy stuff to deal with in the next century. You know why? Where are all our navy docks and dry-docks? On the coast. Just. Sit there and think about that. For two minutes. If you can stretch your brain that long. Whatever you happen to think the government is going to tell you, the DoD is not going to dick around with itself when it comes to dealing with its own bases.

https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazo...1547826612.pdf

[Genava]

You're obviously unaware of the e-mail scandal of a few years back where the leading characters in producing these reports were found to have conspired to manipulate the data in order to produce the results they were looking for

.

The climategate ? Come on, this is so naive from you. Scientists talking about methodological issue about dendrology got their emails hacked and deniers cherry picked only some parts of the talk. Without introducing the context, it gave the idea they were talking about climate change itself while they were not talking about it. There was several enquiries from the UK parlement and from US universities, they found nothing problematic about the email. Even a former chairman of Shell said that the “work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation are not valid.”

This is on the same level than the pizzagate...

[JP226]

.

The climategate ? Come on, this is so naive from you. Scientists talking about methodological issue about dendrology got their emails hacked and deniers cherry picked only some parts of the talk. Without introducing the context, it gave the idea they were talking about climate change itself while they were not talking about it. There was several enquiries from the UK parlement and from US universities, they found nothing problematic about the email. Even a former chairman of Shell said that the “work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation are not valid.”

This is on the same level than the pizzagate...

Of course that was their findings. Can't stop the gravy train over petty data manipulation now can we?

[Genava]

Of course that was their findings. Can't stop the gravy train over petty data manipulation now can we?

But can you see this logical loop you are making?

Governments are corrupted, therefore climate science is corrupted by being founded by government and enquiries are covering them because government.

Climate science is not more or less financed by public money than other fields. How it could be possible that scientists are in a giant global conspiracy over dozens of different nations and since the 1950s at least?

Moreover when I give the examples of independent scientists, their opinions are simply rejected by putting on them a political label, like globalists. Everything is analyzed through value judgement!

Hundreds of private companies are accepting the consensus as well. Even those that have a lot of things to lose if a climate policy is build.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922211/
https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/...tax-coalition/

[Daruwind]

But can you see this logical loop you are making?

Governments are corrupted, therefore climate science is corrupted by being founded by government and enquiries are covering them because government.

Climate science is not more or less financed by public money than other fields. How it could be possible that scientists are in a giant global conspiracy over dozens of different nations and since the 1950s at least?

Moreover when I give the examples of independent scientists, their opinions are simply rejected by putting on them a political label, like globalists. Everything is analyzed through value judgement!

Hundreds of private companies are accepting the consensus as well. Even those that have a lot of things to lose if a climate policy is build.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922211/
https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/...tax-coalition/

Welcome to 21st. Century! Facts no longer matter,pesonal opinions are everything and don´t dare suggest that somebody is not right! Everyone has right to be right, even if wrong...

I think we would be leaving topics and going far off-topic to solve this problem. But my personal estimation is, current pesonalized media are culprint. Look at facebook, it is giving voice to every possible madman, lunatic and preacher. And once you start using Youtube, Instagram, Facebook, you are locked in content from your selected/subscribed groups,circles. Adding that everybody prefer positive feedback over haters. You are feeling better and more enjoying friedly enviroment than hostile. And we all knows how toxic are online discussions (usually)...so close minded people are being kept in their beliefs bubbles. No need to reach out into hostile unknown enviroment. Plus look at current politics, everything. People lamost not reading, just headlines. Attention spam is so small that only short expressions or simple reasoning are viewed are better. Okay, who is going into reading quantum physics while you can easily state that it is UFO covered by goverment?

[JP226]

But can you see this logical loop you are making?

Governments are corrupted, therefore climate science is corrupted by being founded by government and enquiries are covering them because government.

Climate science is not more or less financed by public money than other fields. How it could be possible that scientists are in a giant global conspiracy over dozens of different nations and since the 1950s at least?

Moreover when I give the examples of independent scientists, their opinions are simply rejected by putting on them a political label, like globalists. Everything is analyzed through value judgement!

Hundreds of private companies are accepting the consensus as well. Even those that have a lot of things to lose if a climate policy is build.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922211/
https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/...tax-coalition/

It's amazing that politics has reached the point that we can even use consensus and science in the same conversation. Look bud, I've got ugly rocks protruding from the bay in front of my house in the florida keys. Been like that for the last 20 years since I've owned the thing, at the least global warming/ global cooling/ climate change could afford me a few inches in sea level rise to cover those things up. And it hasn't happened. Neither have the predictions on storms, crazy heat, crazy cold etc etc come to fruition. I consult on utility energy policy, guess what, the biggest variables are population and weather and the variance from weather less noise hasn't changed in 10 years. But now... we've got to spend trillions because this next decade is the real deal. If this weren't such a laughable BS cash grab, you'd figure there would be a track record to point to. And that track record would make it virtually impossible to get a loan on the coast anywhere in the world. But alas, it's not.

[Genava]

It's amazing that politics has reached the point that we can even use consensus and science in the same conversation.

Because it is always like this, for common folks they either trust or distrust the scientific consensus. You don't need to understand the physical properties behind each technology you use. You don't need to take graduate courses on a subject to choose if the consensus is true or wrong. You don't need to go on the Moon to believe that humans did. It is often a matter of trust in the society behind the building of a opinion on science.

I gave several scientific publications and articles in this thread. I did the same in another thread. But nobody is really discussing it. Deniers simply said that it comes from government-founded, corrupted, globalists etc. institutions or peoples.

For example, I highly doubt that you are able to contradict the scientific basis about the CO2 greenhouse effect and the feedback mechanisms resulting from it.

Are you able to contradict each points presented on the website of the American Chemical Society on the subject?
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...arratives.html

Are you able to contradict the publications of Gilbert Norman Plass (1956)?
https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...nd-the-climate
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1956.tb01206.x
http://www.rescuethatfrog.com/wp-con...1956d-copy.pdf

Are you able to give a better explanation for all the evidences?
https://climatenexus.org/climate-new...ingerprinting/

I doubt so. Therefore you build your position only through your feelings and your value judgment. You choose to believe contrarians above other scientists and scientific institutions. You are not able to demonstrate scientifically anything, neither your position or the contradiction in the scientific literature on the subject. (Mere rhetoric are not demonstrations in case you wonder)

[JP226]

Because it is always like this, for common folks they either trust or distrust the scientific consensus. You don't need to understand the physical properties behind each technology you use. You don't need to take graduate courses on a subject to choose if the consensus is true or wrong. You don't need to go on the Moon to believe that humans did. It is often a matter of trust in the society behind the building of a opinion on science.

I gave several scientific publications and articles in this thread. I did the same in another thread. But nobody is really discussing it. Deniers simply said that it comes from government-founded, corrupted, globalists etc. institutions or peoples.

For example, I highly doubt that you are able to contradict the scientific basis about the CO2 greenhouse effect and the feedback mechanisms resulting from it.

Are you able to contradict each points presented on the website of the American Chemical Society on the subject?
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...arratives.html

Are you able to contradict the publications of Gilbert Norman Plass (1956)?
https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...nd-the-climate
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1956.tb01206.x
http://www.rescuethatfrog.com/wp-con...1956d-copy.pdf

Are you able to give a better explanation for all the evidences?
https://climatenexus.org/climate-new...ingerprinting/

I doubt so. Therefore you build your position only through your feelings and your value judgment. You choose to believe contrarians above other scientists and scientific institutions. You are not able to demonstrate scientifically anything, neither your position or the contradiction in the scientific literature on the subject. (Mere rhetoric are not demonstrations in case you wonder)

Let's see... in the last two week I've gone through 5 meetings averaging 8 hours of testimony... so 40 hours total. We were discussing deregulation and open competitive markets for utilities here in Florida. Let me show you an article...

http://thecapitolist.com/panel-concl...ry-in-florida/

and the quote...

“Studies by Charles River Associates and others shows that the proposed changes to Florida’s electricity market would have the very damaging financial impact on state and local governments of more than $1.2 billion per year in increased costs and reduced revenues,” Wilson added. “That means less funding for vital local services, including fire departments and first responders, and higher taxes for consumers and small businesses.”

Every "independent analysis" came up with numbers conveniently identical to each other. Crazy right? Consensus right? There's a ton a effing money at stake for the industry as a whole that is granted a monopoly charter. To get the title "independent" you just have to jerk off the right fellow. And global warming is a multi trillion dollar deal. The real cash didn't start flowing in until the last 5 to 10 years. Consultants, independent scientists, whatever the hell you want to call them will come up with whatever you want with that much money at stake. Until the rocks in my backyard actually submerge or any solvent bank on the face of this planet quits giving loans in urban sprawl on the coast, or even change an inch with the water level for the rocks, its all a cash grab based on junk science.

[Genava]

Every "independent analysis" came up with numbers conveniently identical to each other. Crazy right? Consensus right? There's a ton a effing money at stake for the industry as a whole that is granted a monopoly charter. To get the title "independent" you just have to jerk off the right fellow. And global warming is a multi trillion dollar deal. The real cash didn't start flowing in until the last 5 to 10 years. Consultants, independent scientists, whatever the hell you want to call them will come up with whatever you want with that much money at stake. Until the rocks in my backyard actually submerge or any solvent bank on the face of this planet quits giving loans in urban sprawl on the coast, or even change an inch with the water level for the rocks, its all a cash grab based on junk science.

The problem is that you are using flawed dialectic with fallacious logic known since Classical Times by Greek philosophers. You are simply saying the same thing over and over again without demonstrating anything about global warming. For you, being funded by governments is already a proof of corruption. You gave an example of issue in another subject unrelated to the talk to prove, in your view, that the State is an issue. Logically inferring that the global warming should be in the same situation by transposition.

And global warming is a multi trillion dollar deal. The real cash didn't start flowing in until the last 5 to 10 years.

Perfect! Thank you for highlighting this.

Now explain me why the president’s Science Advisory Committee supported in 1965 the scientific basis about human-induced climate change through dioxide carbon emissions.
http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/

Why the National Academies published "Carbon Dioxide and Climate A Scientific Assessment" in 1979?
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12181/ca...fic-assessment

Why so early then?

Why Exxon knew this was already something scientifically based in 1982?
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...e%20Effect.pdf
http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmob...nhouse-effect/

[B. W.]

OMG! AGW is going to kill off the polar bears! The only problem is that polar bear populations are exploding, but the real story is how the AGW people have worked to hide the information:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...ns-booming.php

[JP226]

The problem is that you are using flawed dialectic with fallacious logic known since Classical Times by Greek philosophers. You are simply saying the same thing over and over again without demonstrating anything about global warming. For you, being funded by governments is already a proof of corruption. You gave an example of issue in another subject unrelated to the talk to prove, in your view, that the State is an issue. Logically inferring that the global warming should be in the same situation by transposition.




Perfect! Thank you for highlighting this.

Now explain me why the president’s Science Advisory Committee supported in 1965 the scientific basis about human-induced climate change through dioxide carbon emissions.
http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/

Why the National Academies published "Carbon Dioxide and Climate A Scientific Assessment" in 1979?
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12181/ca...fic-assessment

Why so early then?

Why Exxon knew this was already something scientifically based in 1982?
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...e%20Effect.pdf
http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmob...nhouse-effect/

Maybe let’s tkae a different path. Why do you believe this junk science? Beyond other folks telling you to, what changes have you seen in your lifetime to warrant listening to junk science?

It’s almost like I’m talking to cult members in asking them why they believe the guru.

[The spartan]

Maybe let’s tkae a different path. Why do you believe this junk science? Beyond other folks telling you to, what changes have you seen in your lifetime to warrant listening to junk science?

It’s almost like I’m talking to cult members in asking them why they believe the guru.

"Believe me over scientific institutions!"

- Some Guy on the Internet

[Prodromos]

"Believe me over church institutions!"

- Some Guy on the Internet

Thanks for your concern, but all the Catholic bishops did the research and concluded the Bible really is true. Heck, you can even ask the Anglican bishops, the Orthodox bishops, the Lutheran bishops, 96% of them agree. These people live and breathe the Bible so I think they know what they're talking about. There's a total consensus on this. And if you're skeptical, frankly you're a denier and should be mocked and/or imprisoned for rejecting the true faith.

Do you see how poor that argument is?

[Gaidin]

When did the Bible become relevant in this thread?

[The spartan]

Do you see how poor that argument is?

No? Unless you are trying to compare the authority scientific and religious institutions have on a scientific topic, I have no idea what you are getting at. I would definitely trust religious institutions as authorities on their religious matters, of course. It is just a bit off topic, here.

[Stario]

We all know global warming won't kill the human species (as the left would like us to believe), in the next 10-15 years...it's game over I am afraid...

[The spartan]

If the extent of our goals is to live for the 15 years, I guess we are solid, then.

[NorseThing]

If the extent of our goals is to live for the 15 years, I guess we are solid, then.

Personally I would be grateful half that time.

The debate about the game is not even a debate about science. It is a debate about who will pay for whatever we think we should do to effect a change. People want immediate change for their own family and their children's future families. Shut down that hope and nothing proposed will be accepted by those people. The left seems to think the entire world lives in comfort. This is not so. Look at much of the world. Living in a mud hut or the equal is not living with any fear of climate change that they have an interest in with their money being used to make such a change. It is always other people's money that should be spent. That is the real game that is up!

[JP226]

Personally I would be grateful half that time.

The debate about the game is not even a debate about science. It is a debate about who will pay for whatever we think we should do to effect a change. People want immediate change for their own family and their children's future families. Shut down that hope and nothing proposed will be accepted by those people. The left seems to think the entire world lives in comfort. This is not so. Look at much of the world. Living in a mud hut or the equal is not living with any fear of climate change that they have an interest in with their money being used to make such a change. It is always other people's money that should be spent. That is the real game that is up!

No “debate about the science.” Again I am looking at rocks that have been the same ocean level since I was a kid, yet this time we’ve only got 12 years. Such utter bull and it’s getting worse and worse.

[Knight of Heaven]

Honestly there is probably worse things we are doing to our planet, that is killing its ecosystems and faster then global warming, Ocean, land and air pollution comes to mind, as well civilization encroaching habitats on said ecosystems, and pushing wildlife to extinction. In the end that also affect us.