What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
…why don’t YOU provide one scientific claim that YOU would propose to be the one that convinces YOU the most that global warming is a problem at the moment.
Click to expand...
If I had to narrow it down to just one fact that convinces me that global warming is a problem at the moment it would be the fact that most climate scientists say it is a problem.
Click to expand...
The “most climate scientists” claim of yours needs to be established, then.

Provide evidence that most do.

Besides, consensus is not a solid basis for science.

Don’t pay attention to “authorities,” think for yourself.
Richard P. Feynman

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.
Richard P. Feynman

If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.
Richard P. Feynman

No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.
Richard P. Feynman

If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side.
Orson Scott Card

Science isn’t done by consensus. It’s done by rigorous testing.
Orson Scott Card
 
HarryStotle said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
HarryStotle:
…why don’t YOU provide one scientific claim that YOU would propose to be the one that convinces YOU the most that global warming is a problem at the moment.
Click to expand...
If I had to narrow it down to just one fact that convinces me that global warming is a problem at the moment it would be the fact that most climate scientists say it is a problem.
Click to expand...
The “most climate scientists” claim of yours needs to be established, then.

Provide evidence that most do.
Click to expand...
Cook 2013
Oreskes 2004
Doran 2009
Powell 2013
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
Bray and von Storch, 2008

These are all surveys of scientists studying climate.
Besides, consensus is not a solid basis for science.
Click to expand...
What is the basis for non-scientists? We can’t do original science, or adequately review it for errors. What do we have besides consensus. For example, how to do know that the half-life of radium is 1600 years? Consensus. You didn’t “think for yourself” to verify that the half-life of radium is 1600 years. You may say “who cares about radium? I’m talking about things that could affect me today.” Well, there’s vaccines. How do you know they work? Have you done the lab work yourself? No, you trust the consensus.
Don’t pay attention to “authorities,” think for yourself.
Richard P. Feynman
Click to expand...
He was speaking to science students.
Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.
Click to expand...
So, scientists do doubt. That is why they go to such lengths to verify theories. And on climate they have gone to immense lengths to doubt and verify.
No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles.
Click to expand...
It isn’t governments. It’s scientists.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is inaccurate to say that recent warming is attributed to human activity solely because “we can’t think of any other cause.”
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking this is true inasmuch as a number of scientists have come up with several different possibilities. What is true however is that the IPCC is pretty much dedicated to proving that CO2 is the culprit.
 
It is very concerning what is happing to our environment. However there is still time to react, I think we must each do what we can.

For example avoid using one time plastic bags at the grocery store.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It isn’t governments. It’s scientists.
Click to expand...
Is it?

Governments around the world, at the behest of the globalist oligarchs, spend $1 billion PER DAY on renewable energy sources and research. And that is only the governments, not organizations or private corporations.

Scientists are on a gravy train.

Do you seriously suggest that the large number of individual scientists hitched to that train are going to upset that train?

😏

I would suggest, since this is such a crucial issue for the world, that the UN, instead of bringing 17 year old adolescents in to badger the world on climate change, that they do the honest thing and bring in the top 10 climate scientists taking the “pro” position and the top ten climate scientists taking the “con” position, along with 10 top scientists in related or impacted fields such as atmospheric physics, biology, economics to comprise a neutral (i.e., with nothing to gain or lose monetarily or regarding their careers or reputation) jury of peers to make a definitive and unbiased ruling regarding where the current climate science credibly stands relative to AGW.

It won’t ever happen, though. You can bet on that.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
So, scientists do doubt. That is why they go to such lengths to verify theories. And on climate they have gone to immense lengths to doubt and verify.
Click to expand...
Uh huh, such as suing in court those who question their findings, or covering or losing their data set so that their pet theory cannot be analyzed.

That isn’t “doubt and verify,” it is deter and vilify.
 
HarryStotle said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
It isn’t governments. It’s scientists.
Click to expand...
Is it?

Governments around the world, at the behest of the globalist oligarchs, spend $1 billion PER DAY on renewable energy sources and research. And that is only the governments, not organizations or private corporations.

Scientists are on a gravy train.

Do you seriously suggest that the large number of individual scientists hitched to that train are going to upset that train?
Click to expand...
It is uncharitable to assume that scientists are corrupting their life’s work at the request of government. It isn’t even logical, as most scientists are paid by universities. (I suppose they are corrupt too?) At some point you have to see that the mountain of corrupt people you need to maintain your conspiracy is just unbelievable.
 
John10 said:
It is very concerning what is happing to our environment. However there is still time to react, I think we must each do what we can.

For example avoid using one time plastic bags at the grocery store.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hear we ought – according to climate alarmist scientists – to be concerned about rising sea levels, and yet instead of the Maldives – the country with the lowest elevation on earth – disappearing as predicted by the Prophet Gore, they have been growing in size – 73.5 ha (2.9%) – since 1971.
First, only one island has been entirely eroded from the data set of 101 islands. This island had an initial size of 0.08 ha and was located on the reef rim of Nukufetau atoll. Second, total land area of the nation has expanded by 73.5 ha (2.9%) since 1971. Notably, eight of nine atolls experienced an increase in land area. Nanumea was the only atoll where a loss in land was detected, although this totalled less than 0.01%. Third, there are marked differences in the magnitude and direction of areal change between islands. A total of 73 islands (of 101) had a net increase in area, totalling 80.7 ha, with a range from <1 to 113% growth. These expanding islands had an average increase in area of 2.18 ha.
Click to expand...
Source: Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations | Nature Communications

How could this be?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
It isn’t governments. It’s scientists.
Click to expand...
Is it?

Governments around the world, at the behest of the globalist oligarchs, spend $1 billion PER DAY on renewable energy sources and research. And that is only the governments, not organizations or private corporations.

Scientists are on a gravy train.

Do you seriously suggest that the large number of individual scientists hitched to that train are going to upset that train?
Click to expand...
It is uncharitable to assume that scientists are corrupting their life’s work at the request of government. It isn’t even logical, as most scientists are paid by universities. (I suppose they are corrupt too?) At some point you have to see that the mountain of corrupt people you need to maintain your conspiracy is just unbelievable.
Click to expand...
I prefer the word “invested” to “corrupt.”

Although judging by how the “mountain of corrupt people” at universities are radically opposed to free speech and have almost entirely bought into a particular political agenda, the “conspiracy” might better be stated as “like-minded” politically speaking. They don’t conspire, they merely think the same thoughts and promote the same actions, entirely coincidentally. 😂

To hear them speak, they have the moral high ground so nothing they believe can possibly be called “corrupt” because they are, in the final analysis, thinking the correct thoughts and will not permit anyone to disagree with them because those who do are simply wrong. Even the facts are wrong when they don’t align with the correct and preordained conclusions.

Correct-thinking scientists: The coral reefs are dying.
Dr. Peter Ridd (scientist with 35+ years of research on coral reefs): Overall the Great Barrier Reef is healthy and growing.
James Cook University Administration: You are being terminated.
Australian Court: Wrongful termination. (Award Dr. Ridd $1.2 million (provisional on submissions)).

Corrupt? The Australian Courts seem to think so.
Conspiracy? Doesn’t require one. Just one “correct thinking” university administrator or department head who moulds students and subordinates in the “truth” over a period of years.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Get out your tin hat then to protect from the mind control rays that are undoubtably coming.
Click to expand...
The word is “undoubtedly.”

Like I said, no conspiracy necessary, although the world political situation currently surely smacks of conspiracy and we do have the technology to facilitate it.

Explain why conservative voices are being silenced by big tech, journalism, higher education and the entertainment industry? Seems like a great bunch of birds flocking together, no? Herd instinct, perhaps?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Explain why conservative voices are being silenced
Click to expand...
They aren’t.
Click to expand...
Uh huh.


Even under Bush, the majority of scientists were Democrat (55%) Only 6% Republican and only 9% conservative.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I couldn’t find current data, but it wouldn’t be a stretch to say the unbalance is even greater today.

Pew also found that "Some 74% of AAAS scientists say the incentive to do research where funding is readily available has too much influence on the direction of research, while 23% disagree, saying such incentives do not have too much influence. Concerns about an undue influence of funding availability on the research process are roughly the same as in 2009.

 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Explain why conservative voices are being silenced
Click to expand...
They aren’t.
Click to expand...
Do you, personally think that life on earth will end in 10-15 years?

The majority of young voters do. And I suspect the majority of children do.


Where did they get this idea from, do you think? Perhaps responsible scientists ought to reel this in just a tad?

Oh, wait. 500 concerned scientists and professionals have complained to the UN


The list of scientists.


Frightening children and young adults, minimally, verges on child abuse, no?
LeafByNiggle said:
Get out your tin hat then to protect from the mind control rays that are undoubtably coming.
Click to expand...
It seems we ought to protect children and young adults from the mind control being imposed upon them by organizations such as the UN and the Democratic Party, given that a majority of them have bought the hyped nonsense.
 
Last edited:
These 500 scientists seem far more responsible and credible than your alarmist cohort.

A list of their key points…

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic.

Warming is far slower than predicted

The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial. CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters

There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2 mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and insects, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.
 
I agree with you.
Even if people don’t accept that climate change itself is partly man made,there’s no denial that water pollution and air pollution in developing countries is man made-and the subsequent health effects- so these issues should still be addressed.
 
HarryStotle said:
Frightening children and young adults, minimally, verges on child abuse, no?
Click to expand...
Child abuse is too strong a word.
If this is child abuse then many other things have to be too like youth boxing and under 18’s Motorcross sport (has led to Paraplegia in some cases).
 
Rozellelily said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Frightening children and young adults, minimally, verges on child abuse, no?
Click to expand...
Child abuse is too strong a word.
Click to expand...
Maybe and maybe not.


Recruiting children to push an agenda when they do not have the wherewithal to understand or sort through all of the information to counteract the anxiety does indeed border on child abuse. I would claim that some parents, teachers and others who push the narrative hard are guilty.

Certainly they are guilty of indoctrination if their reasons for imposing the narrative on children are political rather than reasonably and sincerely held.
 
Last edited:
Ok,but they seem to be giving two stories.
The Climate Psychology Alliance is saying they want it to be recognized as a psychological phenomenon but they don’t want it classed as M.I because they feel the anxiety is rational.

The fact they feel the anxiety should be “treated” by parents reducing wastes says something in itself.

What is Climate Psychology Alliance anyway?
It seems like anyone can create a career of anything these days 😙
 
Last edited:
Rozellelily said:
Ok,but they seem to be giving two stories.
The Climate Psychology Alliance is saying they want it to be recognized as a psychological phenomenon but they don’t want it classed as M.I because they feel the anxiety is rational.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a clear and honest assessment of all the data by unbiased scientists free from all political investment would decide if the anxiety is truly rational.

The UN using children to further a population control and globalist agenda is responsible for creating the anxiety. Trusting the UN to provide reliable analysis of the real situation, at this juncture, is what is irrational.

There are a sufficient number of experts – Richard Lindzen (MIT atmospheric physicist), Don Easterbrook (Univ Western Washington geologist), William Happer (Princeton physicist), Judith Curry (NASA and Georgia Institute of Technology), Tim Ball (historical geography and paleoclimatology, Univ of Manitoba), Roy Spencer (NASA and University of Alabama), Patrick Moore (Greenpeace founder and PhD in ecology), Ross McKitrick (Univ of Guelph, economy), among many others – who question the rationality of the position, and sufficient evidence of how data has been misused to promote alarmism, that I would question the “rational” claim of the article.

It certainly isn’t rational for adults to impose the anxiety upon children, who lack the proper rational tools to fully comprehend what is going on, when so many expert adults aren’t buying it.

Here is how a rational adult would approach the issue.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top