Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[Redeemer]

There is gobs of evidence and research actually. Let me simplify:

We live in a greenhouse. Humans pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere on a global scale. More gasses cause the planet to warm by increasing the greenhouse effect.

See the connection?

CO2 is a byproduct of mammalian respiration. Pants need it to survive. O@ is a byproduct of plant respiration, which we mammals NEED to survive. Carbon need not be demonized as it is in fact a natural resource. Quite possibly the most abundant natural resource we have available.

I believe that the climate is changing because the earth is a dynamic organism, always changing. Do you tink a couple hundred years of temperature samples taken from questionable locations = solid science?

Human beings are nothing if not arrogant fools and it is the height of human arrogance to think our activities have any measurable impact on the climate. Venus notwithstanding, or the fact that Mercury has 2 sides which differ greatly in temperature which has absolutely nothing to do with its atmosphere.

Ultimatly I would feel much more confident in the "science" behind all of this if the folks behind it started building houses in the mountains and weren't getting so stinking rich.

Here is an amusing anecdote for you. One of the first heavy metal bands to addres the issue of climate change and specifically the greenhouse effect, was Megadeth in 1990 with their title Rust in Peace. Interestingly enough the front man for that band and their bassist are Conservative Christians. Wanna know what your buddy Al Gore (The Goracle ) was doing at exactly that time? When he wasn't busy inventing the internet? He was passing legislation to put Parental Advisory warnings on Megadeth's albums because this type of speech was considered "Offensive".
Kinda ironic that the godfather of the modern climate hoax that earned billions off of the climate hoax was suppressing the folks who were trying to bring attention to this issue before we even knew it was a hoax. Follow the money I guess?

I guess thats the reason why my beloved, moderately priced Mustang is filled with shit parts, manufactured in China and I have to come here regularly to find out WTF problem exists that Ford is hiding? follow the money. ALWAYS.

Sponsored

 

[Redeemer]

So let's take a slightly different tack . . .

Fossil fuels are by their very nature a physical natural resource of the Earth. And if you want to go back further, so was the grain that fed the animals that were used for transportation and assisted the earlier development of human society. Do you accept that much?

If so, you have to understand that electricity does not fall into the same category, or at least it won't until somebody figures out how to harness lightning as a reliable source of power. It's not a physical product that can be mined or drilled for, or extracted directly from any material that could be mined or pumped from below.

Electricity is an energy rather than a physical product, and it needs to be created using external energy. Not the same thing at all, and once created and stored for mobile uses it actively seeks a state of zero difference in potential. Wants to just "go away".

"Carbon neutral" has a smoke and mirrors feel to it once you go back to making electricity in the first place. Especially once you want to take coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear off the table. Hydroelectric has known environmental downsides, as does solar once you consider what it takes to go from natural resources in the ground, to the assembling of solar cells, to the eventual disposal of said cells.

Since the conversion of energy from one form to another necessarily involves engineering and resolution among a number of aspects that requires compromise, I would fully expect there to be a number of downsides to even wind as a source of the production of electricity. No free lunch.


Perhaps Europe not having much in the way of their own oil & gas resources makes it easier for those countries to look at alternatives.


Norm

I live in Texas, and lived through the downside of the wind energy scam. On our power bills there is a check box you can check if you want your energy to come exclusively from "renewable" energy sources. There is a 20% uplift but hey, it makes the Commifornia cockroaches who are infesting this once great state feel good right? Except, even if you don't check the virtue signlling bo, your pwer is still coming from wind turbines which froze and failed miserably a few months back. How I wished for some global warming durning those couple of weeks but but BUT, not to worry. I was assured it was no longer global warming but now climate change. Think of the warm fuzzy I received, hearing that this gigantic planet, subject to so many known and nknown variables could have a climate that actually changed over time? But if you wanna tell me putting the grenest of all energy into my car (recycled dinosaurs) is the culprit, then I got a fat bag of Richards for you to eat, and hopefully choke on.

 

[Redeemer]

Hello; Fair question. Those at the top levels of income and influence likely feel they will be able to ride out the changes in comfort or they may plan on profiting.
I do not know about those on the same economic and power level as myself. Maybe it is a similar fear reaction as I have seen about the wearing of masks. I saw a woman the other day in a car by herself wearing a mask. No practical reason for that at all. You cannot infect your self. On top of that it was one of the cheap paper masks which are known to be very poor at stopping the virus. Yet this mask thing has become a pervasive thing.
I suppose what I am saying is since the other tactics to get us into electric cars had not worked the last couple of decades, then use fear. Use fear and have the consequences be a few decades out. By the middle of the century when the difference is supposed to show up, the changes will already have been in place for a couple of decades by then.

I'm sorry, I simply cannot abide the stupidity of a solo person wearing a mask, by themselves, in a car which offers greater protection than most commercial masks could ever hope to. These are the people who NEED to be mask shamed for their own good. Wearing a mask when it is neither effective or appropriate requires mask shaming to UN-indoctrinate the masses of fools out there. YES the virus is real, YES it is contagious, and YES in certain circumstances a proper style of mask properly fitted (Which most of the rubes don't posses or understand) can marginally reduce the risk of viral transmission we need to look at the science. This is NOT a very lethal disease unless you are obese or have other risk factors and even then, presents less risk than the vaccine. Let that sink in.
YES I think the vaccines are mostly effective. NO I don't think there is a tracker chip in them. YES I think mRNA vaccines need more study (But thats happening in real time) and NO I will not get one. I had COVID and it sucked. So die the 3 times I got the flu in my 42 years on this planet and quite a few colds. I didn't die (though I wished I would when I had Norovirus that 1 time) and most of us move on.
The cold hard reality is, its not the virus that has caused us problems, and not so mch the vaccine (Thoug that has given plenty of fodder to the left / right war that the media and the congress wants) rather it is the increase in power this situation has given to the Media Industrial complex. The sad reality is that no matter which side of the ledger your entries fall you've been duped, and clowned, and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[Aldra]

Yes its happening.

No, we wont stop it. Not a chance.

But some will use it as an opportunity to implement policy they would have wanted anyway, for politics or profit.

If global emissions stopped today the temp would keep rising for at least a century. Also most of us would starve. Our lives are awash in oil, we live in it, we wear it, we eat it.

Nuclear is the only viable option, and the evironmentalists hate that too.

 

[Burkey]

Let’s be more specific.

CO2 is a byproduct of mammalian respiration. Pants need it to survive. O@ is a byproduct of plant respiration, which we mammals NEED to survive. Carbon need not be demonized as it is in fact a natural resource. Quite possibly the most abundant natural resource we have available.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide derives from multiple natural sources including volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms; man-made sources of carbon dioxide come mainly from the burning of various fossil fuels for power generation and transport use.
It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration.

So…it’s more than mammalian respiration…
Its also FINITE. So, if it’s not locked up in rocks and fossil fuels, it has to go somewhere right? Places like the atmosphere and the oceans… can we agree on this point?

believe that the climate is changing because the earth is a dynamic organism, always changing. Do you tink a couple hundred years of temperature samples taken from questionable locations = solid science?

Ok. That’s great that you believe that. Now you need to provide a mechanism or mechanism’s that cause the changes to happen. Science has provided many answers. Which part of the current theory would you like to dispute exactly?

On ice cores, a coupe of questions.
What do you mean by a couple of hundred years?
What do you mean by “questionable locations”?

Human beings are nothing if not arrogant fools and it is the height of human arrogance to think our activities have any measurable impact on the climate. Venus notwithstanding, or the fact that Mercury has 2 sides which differ greatly in temperature which has absolutely nothing to do with its atmosphere.

I would suggest that it is the height of human arrogance to think that we can continue to spew GHG’s into the atmosphere and assume that the planet will somehow fix it for us by some as-yet unexplained phenomenon.

Ultimatly I would feel much more confident in the "science" behind all of this if the folks behind it started building houses in the mountains and weren't getting so stinking rich.

Unfortunately, the findings of science are based on the evidence that is produced by research scientist’s out in the field. Obviously I can’t speak about what they’re paind in the US, but here in Australia the typical salary for a research scientist is only 3/4 of what I’m paid at absolute minimum. It’s not great. A decent tradesman makes more money and doesn't have to wear the debt of all that schooling.
You wouldn’t do it for the money, that’s for sure.

Now onto Al Gore…
He meant well…but…
He would have done a lot better if he had accurately portrayed the actual science, instead of going off on his own tangent of fear and hyperbole.
He’s done more harm than good in the end IMO. He’s managed to offside himself with BOTH sides of the “debate” (It’s not a debate, there’s that which is supported by evidence and then there’s “belief”).

 

[Gregs24]

Now we finally get to the crux of it - I knew we would get there in the end.

Of course YOU were not involved in that war and neither was I and it has precisely nothing to do with climate change.

The world has moved on but clearly you never will - goodbye

 

[Gregs24]

This thread...


Yo, have any of you MFs ever walked around a supermarket with an upside down pineapple in your cart? Does it work?

Only if you believe it

 

[Gregs24]

Are you conflating scientific understanding with politics here?

Absolutely yes. Unfortunately several on here conform to type on this and you are literally completely wasting you time trying to educate or even discuss with them, because they are simply unable to grasp that their understanding is too poor and their view is based on politics and bias confirmation.

Fundamentally many on here cannot trust anybody in either authority or with knowledge. There is literally no respect which means whatever data is presented they will not believe it or ignore it. It is odd because I assume they don't challenge their doctor when they are sick and must understand that bridges don't fall down because engineers know what they are doing and yet - geologists, climatologists are all wrong. Bizarre and just shows the power of politics.

Luckily the majority in most countries do understand, or at least express trust in professionals.

Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism | Chalmers

 

[sk47]

Great. How much did they overestimate the warming by?
Which models specifically? All of them or some of them?

Hello; The answer is unless the overestimation is very, very small then it will matter over a span of 50 to 100 years. Even a small error will skew the results over a long enough time. A main point being that there can be a fundamental flaw with the input data which can throw off the out put predictions. The way it has been presented, in my understanding, is these computer models are supposed to be immensely more trustworthy than someone just making an educated guess.

The predictions from the models carry the load in terms of evidence and are used to influence legislation and public opinion so that a currently working energy lifestyle is about to be thrown away and replaced with a poorly tested energy lifestyle. If the data fed into the models is suspect then the outcome is also suspect. This link must have hit home as you are on a war footing in your response which did not happen with the link I posted where the author had a model predicting an event to happen 50 years from now and found the event to be already happening. Two flaws in the models that are published.

One way to look at it from your side of being a climate champion is this. If the CO2 effect is less than has been previously thought, then we have more time that previously thought. That the warming may be happening at a slower rate. That will even suit me to a some degree. Give the new lifestyle tech a chance to mature to a point where it begins to make sense.

Not clear to me why this should be all bad news. Sure some reputations in the climate science world will take a hit if they fight the new information too hard. The easy way out is for them to fall back on the truism of new data has to be considered and revise the models. I guess for some, the computer climate models have become part of a belief system and will be defended even in the face of new evidence.

I guess there is also a follow the money side to keeping the current models in play. As some links I have been posting show there is already a lot of money in play based on the idea drastic measures have to be taken in the next eight to ten years to "save the planet". Those money plans will generate a profit for some and tax revenue for others. An entire fleet of vehicles is to be phased out and replaced. A large block of power plants will be phased out and replaced with new tech. That some of the new power generation tech need to have a practical way to store energy invented for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, has not slowed things down. It is an emergency. We are to be very afraid and quickly agree to the new measures without question. If the CO2 is not causing warming so fast then it is less of an emergency and more like a problem we have time to solve in a reasonable manner.

 

[Burkey]

The answer is unless the overestimation is very, very small then it will matter over a span of 50 to 100 years. Even a small error will skew the results over a long enough time. A main point being that there can be a fundamental flaw with the input data which can throw off the out put predictions. The way it has been presented, in my understanding, is these computer models are supposed to immensely more trustworthy than someone just making an educated guess.

A couple of points.
1. Do you recall a while back how I shared the link with regard to hindcasting and how accurate that has REPEATEDLY proven to be? It’s a yes or no answer.

2. No matter how “perfect” you might want the predictions to be, there will ALWAYS be a margin of error.
That doesn’t mean that you simply throw the whole damn thing in the bin. The claim has never been that the models are “perfect” but they have most certainly proven themselves to be more than adequate for the task.

3. The biggest problem the models face is predicting the actual CO2 concentration because it isn’t an entirely natural process. It’s very difficult to predict what the concentration might be when you have governments implementing changes that can’t be predicted.
The natural response to whatever we do is much simpler by comparison.
This isn’t a failure of the models. If you can predict how much CO2 humans will be emit into the atmosphere 4 years from now, you should look into becoming a psychic.

If the data fed into the models is suspect then the outcome is also suspect.

Agreed. However, I’ll remind you one more time just how fucking accurate the fucking models are and I genuinely hope that this time you might actually take notice. FUCK.

This is beyond infuriating. It’s like listening to a broken record, over and over and over again.

Here.
Read this.
PLEASE ABSORB IT because I’m really running out of patience for this bullshit.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

 

[K4fxd]

The copy I have has citations and sources, and it is less than 10 years old. Do you know what exactly was changed?

All the internet sourses have been altered or no longer exist.

 

[sk47]

Hello; I was about to use Burkey as a foil again, but decided to just stick to addressing the points. A margin of error is common in most endeavors. However when the tool is being used to push me into a situation I have little confidence about, I do not want to discover well into the process that the tool has been flawed.
This will not be an analogy but may express the same sort of feeling. Tesla company made a deal to install some solar panels at a set price. A contract was made. In the middle of the project Tesla decided to increase the price for the panels. The people are suing Tesla and I do not blame them.

In the course of this thread I have found two reports of flaws in the computer climate models and posted links about this. This thread is taking place well after some states have legislated against the sale of ICE vehicles. After companies have vowed to make only EV's in a few years. These decisions must have been made based on information touted as being very accurate in the recent past. If my posts of two flaws in the models hold true then the premise for the decisions may have been flawed.

 

[sk47]

All the internet sourses have been altered or no longer exist.

Hello; For what it is worth I do get what you are driving at.

 

[K4fxd]

Hello; For what it is worth I do get what you are driving at.

In later pressings of the book Crichton points out the changes and omissions.

 

[Super-Genius]

Now that right there is how you argue in the arena of ideas. A logical, well thought out argument backed by fact, without a hint of emotion............................
Naaaaah just kidding.

Sponsored