Is science infallible or is science for sale - Page 3 | Scienc…
Is science infallible or is science for sale
    • Viracocha [1772040]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 14,351
    • Karma: 4,724
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:46:50 - 12/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Viracocha [1772040]

    real scientists rarely attest to certainties.

    then why do they teach us that everything theorized is a certainty?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I cant remember if you are just trolling or not, but in case this is an honest question:

    In science the word theory is used differently than in general conversation. Generally, the word theory means a guess, or hypothesis. In science a theory means an explanation for an observation that is supported by evidence. Additionally the general public hasnt been trained to understand probabilities as they are used in science. So we can say with almost certainty that humans are causing global warming and that it is causing problems for us. We leave the possibility that we are wrong open, but that does not mean we should not act. So when we enter the political realm, it is easier to talk in certainties because otherwise people will not act.
    ends does not justify the means.

    I wasn't trolling, nor asking an honest question.

    Have a Great Day!

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 23:03:04 - 12/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Viracocha [1772040]

    real scientists rarely attest to certainties.

    then why do they teach us that everything theorized is a certainty?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I cant remember if you are just trolling or not, but in case this is an honest question:

    In science the word theory is used differently than in general conversation. Generally, the word theory means a guess, or hypothesis. In science a theory means an explanation for an observation that is supported by evidence. Additionally the general public hasnt been trained to understand probabilities as they are used in science. So we can say with almost certainty that humans are causing global warming and that it is causing problems for us. We leave the possibility that we are wrong open, but that does not mean we should not act. So when we enter the political realm, it is easier to talk in certainties because otherwise people will not act.

    Viracocha [1772040]

    ends does not justify the means.

    I wasn't trolling, nor asking an honest question.
    That is fair, and I have been trying to think of a better way, but I dont have any ideas. A large portion of the population is uncomfortable with uncertainty. So then when an authoritarian says "i know this for certain" they are happy to reject the evidence and follow the authoritarian. Scientists have responded by saying "we know this for certain" because for all intents and purposes we do. How else do you think scientists can reach this portion of the populace who is only happy with certainty? Because it is a big enough group to sway elections if they are not reached.
    • Viracocha [1772040]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 14,351
    • Karma: 4,724
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 23:55:22 - 12/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Viracocha [1772040]

    real scientists rarely attest to certainties.

    then why do they teach us that everything theorized is a certainty?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I cant remember if you are just trolling or not, but in case this is an honest question:

    In science the word theory is used differently than in general conversation. Generally, the word theory means a guess, or hypothesis. In science a theory means an explanation for an observation that is supported by evidence. Additionally the general public hasnt been trained to understand probabilities as they are used in science. So we can say with almost certainty that humans are causing global warming and that it is causing problems for us. We leave the possibility that we are wrong open, but that does not mean we should not act. So when we enter the political realm, it is easier to talk in certainties because otherwise people will not act.

    Viracocha [1772040]

    ends does not justify the means.

    I wasn't trolling, nor asking an honest question.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    That is fair, and I have been trying to think of a better way, but I dont have any ideas. A large portion of the population is uncomfortable with uncertainty. So then when an authoritarian says "i know this for certain" they are happy to reject the evidence and follow the authoritarian. Scientists have responded by saying "we know this for certain" because for all intents and purposes we do. How else do you think scientists can reach this portion of the populace who is only happy with certainty? Because it is a big enough group to sway elections if they are not reached.
    We do the same with history, and the telling of contemporary global affairs.

    Have a Great Day!

    • PopadaPill [900338]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 91
    • Posts: 6,071
    • Karma: 3,820
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 16:24:20 - 14/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Viracocha [1772040]

    real scientists rarely attest to certainties.

    then why do they teach us that everything theorized is a certainty?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I cant remember if you are just trolling or not, but in case this is an honest question:

    In science the word theory is used differently than in general conversation. Generally, the word theory means a guess, or hypothesis. In science a theory means an explanation for an observation that is supported by evidence. Additionally the general public hasnt been trained to understand probabilities as they are used in science. So we can say with almost certainty that humans are causing global warming and that it is causing problems for us. We leave the possibility that we are wrong open, but that does not mean we should not act. So when we enter the political realm, it is easier to talk in certainties because otherwise people will not act.

    Viracocha [1772040]

    ends does not justify the means.

    I wasn't trolling, nor asking an honest question.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    That is fair, and I have been trying to think of a better way, but I dont have any ideas. A large portion of the population is uncomfortable with uncertainty. So then when an authoritarian says "i know this for certain" they are happy to reject the evidence and follow the authoritarian. Scientists have responded by saying "we know this for certain" because for all intents and purposes we do. How else do you think scientists can reach this portion of the populace who is only happy with certainty? Because it is a big enough group to sway elections if they are not reached.
    Cuck
    • LawOfOne [266775]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 1,172
    • Karma: 272
    • Last Action: 4 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 16:19:41 - 19/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't really care who thinks I am naive, thats not a factual statement. Me knowing about atoms will never help my life. I really don't give 2 shits how they fund CERN. Virtually all people when asked won't care.

    I know what I am talking about isn't science, I said that multiple times, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand that I am not. My problem is the exact thing you describe but people have been brainwashed to believe everything associated with science and believe it and the corruption.

    Science can be bought, everything is for sale for the right price. Just because the wrong conclusion was made doesn't mean science did not happen. Just because it is not to your standards or your opinion doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can start from a stance that it is legit and when you go to analyze the data more cash comes your way and you did some science but your answer to why what happened came to the wrong conclusion. The average person doesn't have the will or the time to get science on a basic level but I assure you bunk studies and conclusions will be found eventually without the everyday man having a grasp on it

    Quickdraw [915500]

    "I know what I am talking about isn't science" - Then why did you call it science in the thread title and continue referring to it as science?

    Maybe a specific scientist can be bought and convinced to stop performing work based on the scientific method, but down the road other scientists who are still doing good work based on evidence will find the falsehoods. Oil companies have bankrolled "scientists" to try to prove that global warming doesn't exist, but the larger scientific community has found that based on the evidence humans are warming the planet. The only reason that there is any "debate" about global warming is because the general populace is either too lazy to understand the process that led us to know that we are causing global warming or they are too arrogant to admit that their preconcieved idea might be wrong. Either way, the solution is for the general populace to get off their asses and learn. The scientific method cannot be bought and it is the best thing we have to find the truths of our universe.

    Honestly, I do not understand your argument. You are saying that people should be skeptical of scientific results, which is true, but you are then saying that there is no point in putting in the effort to understand the results. How can you critically examine something you don't understand? It seems to me like you are upset that people have found evidence that contradicts your ideas and you just want people to believe the same things that you do.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Because you never got the point of the thread even though I have outlined it 5 or 6 times??

    Entire Companies can either be bought or corrupt from top to bottom and put out misinformation.

    Global warming, oh boy....the earth is getting hotter, but it heats and cools in cycles that go well beyond our accurate data collecting. It goes up and it goes down. Have we influenced it, probably but the earth will be fine long after we are gone. No need to go all Al Gore panicking. The problem with this subject is there are many books, articles and videos from the science community that people are saying they are scared to not go with the status quo and agree but there is much evidence that the stuff they have been representing as facts about global warming have been falsified. Thats a big problem. If it was good data and the studies were good then the world would be over by now according to the Al Gores of the world. Geo Engineering has also not been taken into account either.

    Climate change is a good example if the science was really settled would the founder of Weather channel really be on TV saying Global warming/climate change is bullshit? If vaccines were safe and effective would giant parts of the population be questioning it? If tobacco was perfectly safe would people have turned on them? If glyphosate and GMOs were harmless would people really be riding monsantos nuts for decades? I don't hear anyone criticizing running, swimming, hiking or enjoying nature. Wanna know why? Because its fantastic for you and if it weren't there would be a large group of people bashing it because of bunk science. Don't act like Science is perfect, it's not.

    Come on man, science is dirty, has been bought many many many times and then they use the information to give us the "truth". Don't act like you have not idea what I am talking about. Cut the science is perfect stuff and stop being obtuse. All men can be bought.

    "you are just as qualified as anyone to collect data and build an argument showing how they are wrong" Well when the funds are made available to verify or confirm I am sure we will all be in line...

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Why are there giant parts of the population questioning scientific results? Because there are powerful, rich people who push the narrative that you cannot trust scientific results. They do this becuase if the people don't have an evidence-based way to determine the truth, then the only source of truth is what the powerful say. In your admirable attempts to avoid being manipulated by the powerful, you have actually fallen for their tactics.

    If you think that the climate change narrative is not true, prove it! The first step would be understanding it. Nobody said the world would be over by now, they said the temperatures would be warmer and that we would have more intense storms and droughts. That has all happened, there are even wars being fought right now because of global warming (in Syria). After you understand what you are investigating there is actually an enormous amount that you can do without any funds. All of the data collected is freely available online, and data collection is often the most expensive thing. Also, all of the principles that our understanding of climate change is based on are from classical physics, which people discovered during the 17th century. You can certainly afford the tools that they had available to them. If you don't trust climate models, you can build your own! Here is a free book to get you started and a link to where yo ucan download the data from all of the climate models currently in use, for free:

    http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783662489574

    https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/

    If you need a supercomputer to prove your points (another place where cost can be a barrier), I will let you use mine for free.

    Now, you don't have any more excuses, so don't come back until you have something to actually add to the conversation, baseless accusations and mistrust are a waste of time. Back up what you are saying with something meaningful.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    No because there is bunk science and corruptible scientists. I have fallen for their tactics because I question it? LOL Ok guy!

    You can't prove anything anymore but when I know scientists are scared to talk about the fact that they think it's natural for temps to go up and down throughout time there is a problem. When the scientist that founded the Weather channel says its mostly bullshit, you should listen. No one has denied that man is a contributing factor but geo engineering that is happening all over the globe is a factor as well that can be stopped. Actually if you go read Al Gores quotes, he predicted doomsday type BS. Then you need to look at Physics and core samples to figure out that temps go up and they come down. It's natural. The studies that the establishment presented at the Paris talks and all the global warming(LOL) summits has been heavily criticized for lacking the scientific method and being cherry picked. this is widely available with a google search. I would also point to the climate study for ice loss scheduled a few months back but all the ships got stuck in Ice and the 17 million in their budget had to be spent on recovery. Its a joke man, stop with the BS.

    The Syrian war officially is because of Gas usage, thats why our troops are on the ground. However anyone not watching Corporate media already knew from 2013 that Assad does not use Gas and the UN inspectors confirmed this. The moderate rebels we support, which is really ISIS, pulled off the gas attacks and we use them to destabilize the region for our Wars for Profit. The defense contractors get rich, the bankers get rich from more loans for more war and they also get to set up central banks in the countries we destroy and there are competing oil pipelines in Syria. One is for our petro dollar and one is Russian to sell off our scam of a system and use their own currency, along with the Chinese. You have zero understanding of Geo Politics so you should not speak about them.

    Super computer???????? You want me to pour water on it?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    You absolutely should question the science and I am glad that you are! So, for example, regarding global warming. If you are questioning that current global warming trends are caused by humans, here is a bunch of evidence, in addition to the book I already sent you, showing how it is cause pretty much entirely by humans:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000028/full

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/full

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/abstract

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6

    Even if every single author in this list is a corrupt piece of shit, there is an abundance of data showing how global warming is caused by humans. If rather than questioning the science, you are accusing it of being wrong, you need to present evidence that shows why these studies are wrong. That is why I offered you the supercomputer, so that there is absolutely no excuse. You can either use data and evidence to prove these studies wrong, or stop making baseless accusations.
    Antarctic core samples such as Vostok and the EPICA prove that the earths temps go up and they go down as do ice levels. You are looking at global warming(lol) through a microscope that Al Gore sold you. Cycles up and cycles down!. For example over the 2000 years, we are only slightly, and I mean ever so slightly above average when looking at the evidence the trees give us. The MWP was not caused by humans and then temps dropped. For every article that you produce I can produce another peer reviewed article from another person that says the opposite. The reason for this is there is zero conciseness in science that these are man made events. Many will tell you as much, Including a weather expert like John Coleman. He knew much more than you on the subject as do many others. I will take their expert opinions. Sit down Mr. Gore!

     

    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 895
    • Karma: 394
    • Last Action: 24 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:22:24 - 19/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    "I know what I am talking about isn't science" - Then why did you call it science in the thread title and continue referring to it as science?

    Maybe a specific scientist can be bought and convinced to stop performing work based on the scientific method, but down the road other scientists who are still doing good work based on evidence will find the falsehoods. Oil companies have bankrolled "scientists" to try to prove that global warming doesn't exist, but the larger scientific community has found that based on the evidence humans are warming the planet. The only reason that there is any "debate" about global warming is because the general populace is either too lazy to understand the process that led us to know that we are causing global warming or they are too arrogant to admit that their preconcieved idea might be wrong. Either way, the solution is for the general populace to get off their asses and learn. The scientific method cannot be bought and it is the best thing we have to find the truths of our universe.

    Honestly, I do not understand your argument. You are saying that people should be skeptical of scientific results, which is true, but you are then saying that there is no point in putting in the effort to understand the results. How can you critically examine something you don't understand? It seems to me like you are upset that people have found evidence that contradicts your ideas and you just want people to believe the same things that you do.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Because you never got the point of the thread even though I have outlined it 5 or 6 times??

    Entire Companies can either be bought or corrupt from top to bottom and put out misinformation.

    Global warming, oh boy....the earth is getting hotter, but it heats and cools in cycles that go well beyond our accurate data collecting. It goes up and it goes down. Have we influenced it, probably but the earth will be fine long after we are gone. No need to go all Al Gore panicking. The problem with this subject is there are many books, articles and videos from the science community that people are saying they are scared to not go with the status quo and agree but there is much evidence that the stuff they have been representing as facts about global warming have been falsified. Thats a big problem. If it was good data and the studies were good then the world would be over by now according to the Al Gores of the world. Geo Engineering has also not been taken into account either.

    Climate change is a good example if the science was really settled would the founder of Weather channel really be on TV saying Global warming/climate change is bullshit? If vaccines were safe and effective would giant parts of the population be questioning it? If tobacco was perfectly safe would people have turned on them? If glyphosate and GMOs were harmless would people really be riding monsantos nuts for decades? I don't hear anyone criticizing running, swimming, hiking or enjoying nature. Wanna know why? Because its fantastic for you and if it weren't there would be a large group of people bashing it because of bunk science. Don't act like Science is perfect, it's not.

    Come on man, science is dirty, has been bought many many many times and then they use the information to give us the "truth". Don't act like you have not idea what I am talking about. Cut the science is perfect stuff and stop being obtuse. All men can be bought.

    "you are just as qualified as anyone to collect data and build an argument showing how they are wrong" Well when the funds are made available to verify or confirm I am sure we will all be in line...

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Why are there giant parts of the population questioning scientific results? Because there are powerful, rich people who push the narrative that you cannot trust scientific results. They do this becuase if the people don't have an evidence-based way to determine the truth, then the only source of truth is what the powerful say. In your admirable attempts to avoid being manipulated by the powerful, you have actually fallen for their tactics.

    If you think that the climate change narrative is not true, prove it! The first step would be understanding it. Nobody said the world would be over by now, they said the temperatures would be warmer and that we would have more intense storms and droughts. That has all happened, there are even wars being fought right now because of global warming (in Syria). After you understand what you are investigating there is actually an enormous amount that you can do without any funds. All of the data collected is freely available online, and data collection is often the most expensive thing. Also, all of the principles that our understanding of climate change is based on are from classical physics, which people discovered during the 17th century. You can certainly afford the tools that they had available to them. If you don't trust climate models, you can build your own! Here is a free book to get you started and a link to where yo ucan download the data from all of the climate models currently in use, for free:

    http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783662489574

    https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/

    If you need a supercomputer to prove your points (another place where cost can be a barrier), I will let you use mine for free.

    Now, you don't have any more excuses, so don't come back until you have something to actually add to the conversation, baseless accusations and mistrust are a waste of time. Back up what you are saying with something meaningful.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    No because there is bunk science and corruptible scientists. I have fallen for their tactics because I question it? LOL Ok guy!

    You can't prove anything anymore but when I know scientists are scared to talk about the fact that they think it's natural for temps to go up and down throughout time there is a problem. When the scientist that founded the Weather channel says its mostly bullshit, you should listen. No one has denied that man is a contributing factor but geo engineering that is happening all over the globe is a factor as well that can be stopped. Actually if you go read Al Gores quotes, he predicted doomsday type BS. Then you need to look at Physics and core samples to figure out that temps go up and they come down. It's natural. The studies that the establishment presented at the Paris talks and all the global warming(LOL) summits has been heavily criticized for lacking the scientific method and being cherry picked. this is widely available with a google search. I would also point to the climate study for ice loss scheduled a few months back but all the ships got stuck in Ice and the 17 million in their budget had to be spent on recovery. Its a joke man, stop with the BS.

    The Syrian war officially is because of Gas usage, thats why our troops are on the ground. However anyone not watching Corporate media already knew from 2013 that Assad does not use Gas and the UN inspectors confirmed this. The moderate rebels we support, which is really ISIS, pulled off the gas attacks and we use them to destabilize the region for our Wars for Profit. The defense contractors get rich, the bankers get rich from more loans for more war and they also get to set up central banks in the countries we destroy and there are competing oil pipelines in Syria. One is for our petro dollar and one is Russian to sell off our scam of a system and use their own currency, along with the Chinese. You have zero understanding of Geo Politics so you should not speak about them.

    Super computer???????? You want me to pour water on it?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    You absolutely should question the science and I am glad that you are! So, for example, regarding global warming. If you are questioning that current global warming trends are caused by humans, here is a bunch of evidence, in addition to the book I already sent you, showing how it is cause pretty much entirely by humans:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000028/full

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/full

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/abstract

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6

    Even if every single author in this list is a corrupt piece of shit, there is an abundance of data showing how global warming is caused by humans. If rather than questioning the science, you are accusing it of being wrong, you need to present evidence that shows why these studies are wrong. That is why I offered you the supercomputer, so that there is absolutely no excuse. You can either use data and evidence to prove these studies wrong, or stop making baseless accusations.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Antarctic core samples such as Vostok and the EPICA prove that the earths temps go up and they go down as do ice levels. You are looking at global warming(lol) through a microscope that Al Gore sold you. Cycles up and cycles down!. For example over the 2000 years, we are only slightly, and I mean ever so slightly above average when looking at the evidence the trees give us. The MWP was not caused by humans and then temps dropped. For every article that you produce I can produce another peer reviewed article from another person that says the opposite. The reason for this is there is zero conciseness in science that these are man made events. Many will tell you as much, Including a weather expert like John Coleman. He knew much more than you on the subject as do many others. I will take their expert opinions. Sit down Mr. Gore!
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 what about for this one?

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:39:28 - 19/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    "I know what I am talking about isn't science" - Then why did you call it science in the thread title and continue referring to it as science?

    Maybe a specific scientist can be bought and convinced to stop performing work based on the scientific method, but down the road other scientists who are still doing good work based on evidence will find the falsehoods. Oil companies have bankrolled "scientists" to try to prove that global warming doesn't exist, but the larger scientific community has found that based on the evidence humans are warming the planet. The only reason that there is any "debate" about global warming is because the general populace is either too lazy to understand the process that led us to know that we are causing global warming or they are too arrogant to admit that their preconcieved idea might be wrong. Either way, the solution is for the general populace to get off their asses and learn. The scientific method cannot be bought and it is the best thing we have to find the truths of our universe.

    Honestly, I do not understand your argument. You are saying that people should be skeptical of scientific results, which is true, but you are then saying that there is no point in putting in the effort to understand the results. How can you critically examine something you don't understand? It seems to me like you are upset that people have found evidence that contradicts your ideas and you just want people to believe the same things that you do.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Because you never got the point of the thread even though I have outlined it 5 or 6 times??

    Entire Companies can either be bought or corrupt from top to bottom and put out misinformation.

    Global warming, oh boy....the earth is getting hotter, but it heats and cools in cycles that go well beyond our accurate data collecting. It goes up and it goes down. Have we influenced it, probably but the earth will be fine long after we are gone. No need to go all Al Gore panicking. The problem with this subject is there are many books, articles and videos from the science community that people are saying they are scared to not go with the status quo and agree but there is much evidence that the stuff they have been representing as facts about global warming have been falsified. Thats a big problem. If it was good data and the studies were good then the world would be over by now according to the Al Gores of the world. Geo Engineering has also not been taken into account either.

    Climate change is a good example if the science was really settled would the founder of Weather channel really be on TV saying Global warming/climate change is bullshit? If vaccines were safe and effective would giant parts of the population be questioning it? If tobacco was perfectly safe would people have turned on them? If glyphosate and GMOs were harmless would people really be riding monsantos nuts for decades? I don't hear anyone criticizing running, swimming, hiking or enjoying nature. Wanna know why? Because its fantastic for you and if it weren't there would be a large group of people bashing it because of bunk science. Don't act like Science is perfect, it's not.

    Come on man, science is dirty, has been bought many many many times and then they use the information to give us the "truth". Don't act like you have not idea what I am talking about. Cut the science is perfect stuff and stop being obtuse. All men can be bought.

    "you are just as qualified as anyone to collect data and build an argument showing how they are wrong" Well when the funds are made available to verify or confirm I am sure we will all be in line...

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Why are there giant parts of the population questioning scientific results? Because there are powerful, rich people who push the narrative that you cannot trust scientific results. They do this becuase if the people don't have an evidence-based way to determine the truth, then the only source of truth is what the powerful say. In your admirable attempts to avoid being manipulated by the powerful, you have actually fallen for their tactics.

    If you think that the climate change narrative is not true, prove it! The first step would be understanding it. Nobody said the world would be over by now, they said the temperatures would be warmer and that we would have more intense storms and droughts. That has all happened, there are even wars being fought right now because of global warming (in Syria). After you understand what you are investigating there is actually an enormous amount that you can do without any funds. All of the data collected is freely available online, and data collection is often the most expensive thing. Also, all of the principles that our understanding of climate change is based on are from classical physics, which people discovered during the 17th century. You can certainly afford the tools that they had available to them. If you don't trust climate models, you can build your own! Here is a free book to get you started and a link to where yo ucan download the data from all of the climate models currently in use, for free:

    http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783662489574

    https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/

    If you need a supercomputer to prove your points (another place where cost can be a barrier), I will let you use mine for free.

    Now, you don't have any more excuses, so don't come back until you have something to actually add to the conversation, baseless accusations and mistrust are a waste of time. Back up what you are saying with something meaningful.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    No because there is bunk science and corruptible scientists. I have fallen for their tactics because I question it? LOL Ok guy!

    You can't prove anything anymore but when I know scientists are scared to talk about the fact that they think it's natural for temps to go up and down throughout time there is a problem. When the scientist that founded the Weather channel says its mostly bullshit, you should listen. No one has denied that man is a contributing factor but geo engineering that is happening all over the globe is a factor as well that can be stopped. Actually if you go read Al Gores quotes, he predicted doomsday type BS. Then you need to look at Physics and core samples to figure out that temps go up and they come down. It's natural. The studies that the establishment presented at the Paris talks and all the global warming(LOL) summits has been heavily criticized for lacking the scientific method and being cherry picked. this is widely available with a google search. I would also point to the climate study for ice loss scheduled a few months back but all the ships got stuck in Ice and the 17 million in their budget had to be spent on recovery. Its a joke man, stop with the BS.

    The Syrian war officially is because of Gas usage, thats why our troops are on the ground. However anyone not watching Corporate media already knew from 2013 that Assad does not use Gas and the UN inspectors confirmed this. The moderate rebels we support, which is really ISIS, pulled off the gas attacks and we use them to destabilize the region for our Wars for Profit. The defense contractors get rich, the bankers get rich from more loans for more war and they also get to set up central banks in the countries we destroy and there are competing oil pipelines in Syria. One is for our petro dollar and one is Russian to sell off our scam of a system and use their own currency, along with the Chinese. You have zero understanding of Geo Politics so you should not speak about them.

    Super computer???????? You want me to pour water on it?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    You absolutely should question the science and I am glad that you are! So, for example, regarding global warming. If you are questioning that current global warming trends are caused by humans, here is a bunch of evidence, in addition to the book I already sent you, showing how it is cause pretty much entirely by humans:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000028/full

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/full

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/abstract

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6

    Even if every single author in this list is a corrupt piece of shit, there is an abundance of data showing how global warming is caused by humans. If rather than questioning the science, you are accusing it of being wrong, you need to present evidence that shows why these studies are wrong. That is why I offered you the supercomputer, so that there is absolutely no excuse. You can either use data and evidence to prove these studies wrong, or stop making baseless accusations.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Antarctic core samples such as Vostok and the EPICA prove that the earths temps go up and they go down as do ice levels. You are looking at global warming(lol) through a microscope that Al Gore sold you. Cycles up and cycles down!. For example over the 2000 years, we are only slightly, and I mean ever so slightly above average when looking at the evidence the trees give us. The MWP was not caused by humans and then temps dropped. For every article that you produce I can produce another peer reviewed article from another person that says the opposite. The reason for this is there is zero conciseness in science that these are man made events. Many will tell you as much, Including a weather expert like John Coleman. He knew much more than you on the subject as do many others. I will take their expert opinions. Sit down Mr. Gore!
    That is exactly right, the earths tempreature has cycled up and down in the past naturally. That does not mean that current warming is not caused by humans. It also does not mean thqt we should not worry. For example, during previous warm periods most of North America was underwater, it was a vast shallow sea! That would be a huge problem for us if the earth warms enough that it happens again. The reason we need to be concerned with current, human caused global warming is that our society was built around the current conditions. Most major cities are located near rivers so that they have a water supply. What will we do when the climate changes atmospheric circulation so that rainfall patterns change and the rivers are located in different places? What will we do when Florida is underwater? These are all things that will be incredibly expensive to deal with. It would be much cheaper to prevent these changes by stopping global warming now.

    I have been advocating that you investigate the science on your own so that you dont have to rely on an authority to tell you what to think because I think that is the best way to prevent the abuses of authority that you are worried about. But if you only want to trust an expert, I do in fact know what I am talking about. I am a scientist with a PhD who studies the impacts of global warming, so I am much more qualified to speak on the subject than John Coleman who only had a bachelors degree in journalism and based his views on things that are demonstrably false. If you can produce a bunch of peer reviewed articles that global warming is not caused by humans I would be happy to read them.
    Last edited by Quickdraw on 18:40:36 - 19/03/18
    • MachineGunSteve [184119]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 7,739
    • Karma: 7,950
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 19:16:42 - 19/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Because you never got the point of the thread even though I have outlined it 5 or 6 times??

    Entire Companies can either be bought or corrupt from top to bottom and put out misinformation.

    Global warming, oh boy....the earth is getting hotter, but it heats and cools in cycles that go well beyond our accurate data collecting. It goes up and it goes down. Have we influenced it, probably but the earth will be fine long after we are gone. No need to go all Al Gore panicking. The problem with this subject is there are many books, articles and videos from the science community that people are saying they are scared to not go with the status quo and agree but there is much evidence that the stuff they have been representing as facts about global warming have been falsified. Thats a big problem. If it was good data and the studies were good then the world would be over by now according to the Al Gores of the world. Geo Engineering has also not been taken into account either.

    Climate change is a good example if the science was really settled would the founder of Weather channel really be on TV saying Global warming/climate change is bullshit? If vaccines were safe and effective would giant parts of the population be questioning it? If tobacco was perfectly safe would people have turned on them? If glyphosate and GMOs were harmless would people really be riding monsantos nuts for decades? I don't hear anyone criticizing running, swimming, hiking or enjoying nature. Wanna know why? Because its fantastic for you and if it weren't there would be a large group of people bashing it because of bunk science. Don't act like Science is perfect, it's not.

    Come on man, science is dirty, has been bought many many many times and then they use the information to give us the "truth". Don't act like you have not idea what I am talking about. Cut the science is perfect stuff and stop being obtuse. All men can be bought.

    "you are just as qualified as anyone to collect data and build an argument showing how they are wrong" Well when the funds are made available to verify or confirm I am sure we will all be in line...

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Why are there giant parts of the population questioning scientific results? Because there are powerful, rich people who push the narrative that you cannot trust scientific results. They do this becuase if the people don't have an evidence-based way to determine the truth, then the only source of truth is what the powerful say. In your admirable attempts to avoid being manipulated by the powerful, you have actually fallen for their tactics.

    If you think that the climate change narrative is not true, prove it! The first step would be understanding it. Nobody said the world would be over by now, they said the temperatures would be warmer and that we would have more intense storms and droughts. That has all happened, there are even wars being fought right now because of global warming (in Syria). After you understand what you are investigating there is actually an enormous amount that you can do without any funds. All of the data collected is freely available online, and data collection is often the most expensive thing. Also, all of the principles that our understanding of climate change is based on are from classical physics, which people discovered during the 17th century. You can certainly afford the tools that they had available to them. If you don't trust climate models, you can build your own! Here is a free book to get you started and a link to where yo ucan download the data from all of the climate models currently in use, for free:

    http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783662489574

    https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/

    If you need a supercomputer to prove your points (another place where cost can be a barrier), I will let you use mine for free.

    Now, you don't have any more excuses, so don't come back until you have something to actually add to the conversation, baseless accusations and mistrust are a waste of time. Back up what you are saying with something meaningful.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    No because there is bunk science and corruptible scientists. I have fallen for their tactics because I question it? LOL Ok guy!

    You can't prove anything anymore but when I know scientists are scared to talk about the fact that they think it's natural for temps to go up and down throughout time there is a problem. When the scientist that founded the Weather channel says its mostly bullshit, you should listen. No one has denied that man is a contributing factor but geo engineering that is happening all over the globe is a factor as well that can be stopped. Actually if you go read Al Gores quotes, he predicted doomsday type BS. Then you need to look at Physics and core samples to figure out that temps go up and they come down. It's natural. The studies that the establishment presented at the Paris talks and all the global warming(LOL) summits has been heavily criticized for lacking the scientific method and being cherry picked. this is widely available with a google search. I would also point to the climate study for ice loss scheduled a few months back but all the ships got stuck in Ice and the 17 million in their budget had to be spent on recovery. Its a joke man, stop with the BS.

    The Syrian war officially is because of Gas usage, thats why our troops are on the ground. However anyone not watching Corporate media already knew from 2013 that Assad does not use Gas and the UN inspectors confirmed this. The moderate rebels we support, which is really ISIS, pulled off the gas attacks and we use them to destabilize the region for our Wars for Profit. The defense contractors get rich, the bankers get rich from more loans for more war and they also get to set up central banks in the countries we destroy and there are competing oil pipelines in Syria. One is for our petro dollar and one is Russian to sell off our scam of a system and use their own currency, along with the Chinese. You have zero understanding of Geo Politics so you should not speak about them.

    Super computer???????? You want me to pour water on it?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    You absolutely should question the science and I am glad that you are! So, for example, regarding global warming. If you are questioning that current global warming trends are caused by humans, here is a bunch of evidence, in addition to the book I already sent you, showing how it is cause pretty much entirely by humans:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000028/full

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/full

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/abstract

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6

    Even if every single author in this list is a corrupt piece of shit, there is an abundance of data showing how global warming is caused by humans. If rather than questioning the science, you are accusing it of being wrong, you need to present evidence that shows why these studies are wrong. That is why I offered you the supercomputer, so that there is absolutely no excuse. You can either use data and evidence to prove these studies wrong, or stop making baseless accusations.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Antarctic core samples such as Vostok and the EPICA prove that the earths temps go up and they go down as do ice levels. You are looking at global warming(lol) through a microscope that Al Gore sold you. Cycles up and cycles down!. For example over the 2000 years, we are only slightly, and I mean ever so slightly above average when looking at the evidence the trees give us. The MWP was not caused by humans and then temps dropped. For every article that you produce I can produce another peer reviewed article from another person that says the opposite. The reason for this is there is zero conciseness in science that these are man made events. Many will tell you as much, Including a weather expert like John Coleman. He knew much more than you on the subject as do many others. I will take their expert opinions. Sit down Mr. Gore!

    Quickdraw [915500]

    That is exactly right, the earths tempreature has cycled up and down in the past naturally. That does not mean that current warming is not caused by humans. It also does not mean thqt we should not worry. For example, during previous warm periods most of North America was underwater, it was a vast shallow sea! That would be a huge problem for us if the earth warms enough that it happens again. The reason we need to be concerned with current, human caused global warming is that our society was built around the current conditions. Most major cities are located near rivers so that they have a water supply. What will we do when the climate changes atmospheric circulation so that rainfall patterns change and the rivers are located in different places? What will we do when Florida is underwater? These are all things that will be incredibly expensive to deal with. It would be much cheaper to prevent these changes by stopping global warming now.

    I have been advocating that you investigate the science on your own so that you dont have to rely on an authority to tell you what to think because I think that is the best way to prevent the abuses of authority that you are worried about. But if you only want to trust an expert, I do in fact know what I am talking about. I am a scientist with a PhD who studies the impacts of global warming, so I am much more qualified to speak on the subject than John Coleman who only had a bachelors degree in journalism and based his views on things that are demonstrably false. If you can produce a bunch of peer reviewed articles that global warming is not caused by humans I would be happy to read them.
    Let's say I accept the fact that you know what you are talking about, and I accept the fact that humans are to cause for the minor fluctuations in temperature that are currently causing climate change to be more robust than is attributable to natural factors... so what?

    The problem I have with all of this is that there is no practical fix that I can conceive of or have read about that is achievable in a manner that probably won't cause a major collapse of our economy and way of life.

    If we in the USA suddenly stopped eating meat... all of us, and stopped driving to work... all of us... and stopped doing everything we are doing (impossible really) what impact would that have? Maybe a global reduction of 20% for our carbon footprint... say 25%... but then we may as well give the keys to the Russians and Chinese to the White House, and all march lock step into the nearest ocean.

    We are a capitalist nation (I guess... we try to be, or we call ourselves one... not sure anymore), so the market will eventually fix the problem in the USA. Solar panels are popping up on every roof in my neighborhood. Hybrid cars are everywhere... laws are being past to end plastic use in retail... etc., etc. What else should we do doctor?

    I would love for someone with an actual plan to run for office. Not someone with anecdotes, campaign slogans, and rhetoric, but an actual thought out plan to show us during their campaigning that looks like it would work without ruin to the national economy. I would vote for that person regardless of party. But I have yet to see that person, because there is no plan... there is only using the issue as a wedge and political gain, and that is just as bad as denying there is a problem in my opinion.
    Last edited by MachineGunSteve on 19:23:03 - 19/03/18

    Earth Mother, Ganesha, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Mithra, Jesus, Allah,... GOD...  and the Internet God of conspiracies... I beg you:

     

    Please protect me from your followers.

     

     

    • PopadaPill [900338]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 91
    • Posts: 6,071
    • Karma: 3,820
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 19:49:50 - 19/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Because you never got the point of the thread even though I have outlined it 5 or 6 times??

    Entire Companies can either be bought or corrupt from top to bottom and put out misinformation.

    Global warming, oh boy....the earth is getting hotter, but it heats and cools in cycles that go well beyond our accurate data collecting. It goes up and it goes down. Have we influenced it, probably but the earth will be fine long after we are gone. No need to go all Al Gore panicking. The problem with this subject is there are many books, articles and videos from the science community that people are saying they are scared to not go with the status quo and agree but there is much evidence that the stuff they have been representing as facts about global warming have been falsified. Thats a big problem. If it was good data and the studies were good then the world would be over by now according to the Al Gores of the world. Geo Engineering has also not been taken into account either.

    Climate change is a good example if the science was really settled would the founder of Weather channel really be on TV saying Global warming/climate change is bullshit? If vaccines were safe and effective would giant parts of the population be questioning it? If tobacco was perfectly safe would people have turned on them? If glyphosate and GMOs were harmless would people really be riding monsantos nuts for decades? I don't hear anyone criticizing running, swimming, hiking or enjoying nature. Wanna know why? Because its fantastic for you and if it weren't there would be a large group of people bashing it because of bunk science. Don't act like Science is perfect, it's not.

    Come on man, science is dirty, has been bought many many many times and then they use the information to give us the "truth". Don't act like you have not idea what I am talking about. Cut the science is perfect stuff and stop being obtuse. All men can be bought.

    "you are just as qualified as anyone to collect data and build an argument showing how they are wrong" Well when the funds are made available to verify or confirm I am sure we will all be in line...

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Why are there giant parts of the population questioning scientific results? Because there are powerful, rich people who push the narrative that you cannot trust scientific results. They do this becuase if the people don't have an evidence-based way to determine the truth, then the only source of truth is what the powerful say. In your admirable attempts to avoid being manipulated by the powerful, you have actually fallen for their tactics.

    If you think that the climate change narrative is not true, prove it! The first step would be understanding it. Nobody said the world would be over by now, they said the temperatures would be warmer and that we would have more intense storms and droughts. That has all happened, there are even wars being fought right now because of global warming (in Syria). After you understand what you are investigating there is actually an enormous amount that you can do without any funds. All of the data collected is freely available online, and data collection is often the most expensive thing. Also, all of the principles that our understanding of climate change is based on are from classical physics, which people discovered during the 17th century. You can certainly afford the tools that they had available to them. If you don't trust climate models, you can build your own! Here is a free book to get you started and a link to where yo ucan download the data from all of the climate models currently in use, for free:

    http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783662489574

    https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/

    If you need a supercomputer to prove your points (another place where cost can be a barrier), I will let you use mine for free.

    Now, you don't have any more excuses, so don't come back until you have something to actually add to the conversation, baseless accusations and mistrust are a waste of time. Back up what you are saying with something meaningful.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    No because there is bunk science and corruptible scientists. I have fallen for their tactics because I question it? LOL Ok guy!

    You can't prove anything anymore but when I know scientists are scared to talk about the fact that they think it's natural for temps to go up and down throughout time there is a problem. When the scientist that founded the Weather channel says its mostly bullshit, you should listen. No one has denied that man is a contributing factor but geo engineering that is happening all over the globe is a factor as well that can be stopped. Actually if you go read Al Gores quotes, he predicted doomsday type BS. Then you need to look at Physics and core samples to figure out that temps go up and they come down. It's natural. The studies that the establishment presented at the Paris talks and all the global warming(LOL) summits has been heavily criticized for lacking the scientific method and being cherry picked. this is widely available with a google search. I would also point to the climate study for ice loss scheduled a few months back but all the ships got stuck in Ice and the 17 million in their budget had to be spent on recovery. Its a joke man, stop with the BS.

    The Syrian war officially is because of Gas usage, thats why our troops are on the ground. However anyone not watching Corporate media already knew from 2013 that Assad does not use Gas and the UN inspectors confirmed this. The moderate rebels we support, which is really ISIS, pulled off the gas attacks and we use them to destabilize the region for our Wars for Profit. The defense contractors get rich, the bankers get rich from more loans for more war and they also get to set up central banks in the countries we destroy and there are competing oil pipelines in Syria. One is for our petro dollar and one is Russian to sell off our scam of a system and use their own currency, along with the Chinese. You have zero understanding of Geo Politics so you should not speak about them.

    Super computer???????? You want me to pour water on it?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    You absolutely should question the science and I am glad that you are! So, for example, regarding global warming. If you are questioning that current global warming trends are caused by humans, here is a bunch of evidence, in addition to the book I already sent you, showing how it is cause pretty much entirely by humans:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000028/full

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/full

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/abstract

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6

    Even if every single author in this list is a corrupt piece of shit, there is an abundance of data showing how global warming is caused by humans. If rather than questioning the science, you are accusing it of being wrong, you need to present evidence that shows why these studies are wrong. That is why I offered you the supercomputer, so that there is absolutely no excuse. You can either use data and evidence to prove these studies wrong, or stop making baseless accusations.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Antarctic core samples such as Vostok and the EPICA prove that the earths temps go up and they go down as do ice levels. You are looking at global warming(lol) through a microscope that Al Gore sold you. Cycles up and cycles down!. For example over the 2000 years, we are only slightly, and I mean ever so slightly above average when looking at the evidence the trees give us. The MWP was not caused by humans and then temps dropped. For every article that you produce I can produce another peer reviewed article from another person that says the opposite. The reason for this is there is zero conciseness in science that these are man made events. Many will tell you as much, Including a weather expert like John Coleman. He knew much more than you on the subject as do many others. I will take their expert opinions. Sit down Mr. Gore!

    Lewri [1762864]

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 what about for this one?
    Can i have a list of scientists who were in this  97% consensus please.



    dont say we just have to accept its 97% because someone else i dont trust tells me so.

    Silly video
    Last edited by PopadaPill on 20:20:55 - 19/03/18
    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 895
    • Karma: 394
    • Last Action: 24 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:57:06 - 19/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Why are there giant parts of the population questioning scientific results? Because there are powerful, rich people who push the narrative that you cannot trust scientific results. They do this becuase if the people don't have an evidence-based way to determine the truth, then the only source of truth is what the powerful say. In your admirable attempts to avoid being manipulated by the powerful, you have actually fallen for their tactics.

    If you think that the climate change narrative is not true, prove it! The first step would be understanding it. Nobody said the world would be over by now, they said the temperatures would be warmer and that we would have more intense storms and droughts. That has all happened, there are even wars being fought right now because of global warming (in Syria). After you understand what you are investigating there is actually an enormous amount that you can do without any funds. All of the data collected is freely available online, and data collection is often the most expensive thing. Also, all of the principles that our understanding of climate change is based on are from classical physics, which people discovered during the 17th century. You can certainly afford the tools that they had available to them. If you don't trust climate models, you can build your own! Here is a free book to get you started and a link to where yo ucan download the data from all of the climate models currently in use, for free:

    http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783662489574

    https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/

    If you need a supercomputer to prove your points (another place where cost can be a barrier), I will let you use mine for free.

    Now, you don't have any more excuses, so don't come back until you have something to actually add to the conversation, baseless accusations and mistrust are a waste of time. Back up what you are saying with something meaningful.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    No because there is bunk science and corruptible scientists. I have fallen for their tactics because I question it? LOL Ok guy!

    You can't prove anything anymore but when I know scientists are scared to talk about the fact that they think it's natural for temps to go up and down throughout time there is a problem. When the scientist that founded the Weather channel says its mostly bullshit, you should listen. No one has denied that man is a contributing factor but geo engineering that is happening all over the globe is a factor as well that can be stopped. Actually if you go read Al Gores quotes, he predicted doomsday type BS. Then you need to look at Physics and core samples to figure out that temps go up and they come down. It's natural. The studies that the establishment presented at the Paris talks and all the global warming(LOL) summits has been heavily criticized for lacking the scientific method and being cherry picked. this is widely available with a google search. I would also point to the climate study for ice loss scheduled a few months back but all the ships got stuck in Ice and the 17 million in their budget had to be spent on recovery. Its a joke man, stop with the BS.

    The Syrian war officially is because of Gas usage, thats why our troops are on the ground. However anyone not watching Corporate media already knew from 2013 that Assad does not use Gas and the UN inspectors confirmed this. The moderate rebels we support, which is really ISIS, pulled off the gas attacks and we use them to destabilize the region for our Wars for Profit. The defense contractors get rich, the bankers get rich from more loans for more war and they also get to set up central banks in the countries we destroy and there are competing oil pipelines in Syria. One is for our petro dollar and one is Russian to sell off our scam of a system and use their own currency, along with the Chinese. You have zero understanding of Geo Politics so you should not speak about them.

    Super computer???????? You want me to pour water on it?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    You absolutely should question the science and I am glad that you are! So, for example, regarding global warming. If you are questioning that current global warming trends are caused by humans, here is a bunch of evidence, in addition to the book I already sent you, showing how it is cause pretty much entirely by humans:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000028/full

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/full

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/abstract

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6

    Even if every single author in this list is a corrupt piece of shit, there is an abundance of data showing how global warming is caused by humans. If rather than questioning the science, you are accusing it of being wrong, you need to present evidence that shows why these studies are wrong. That is why I offered you the supercomputer, so that there is absolutely no excuse. You can either use data and evidence to prove these studies wrong, or stop making baseless accusations.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Antarctic core samples such as Vostok and the EPICA prove that the earths temps go up and they go down as do ice levels. You are looking at global warming(lol) through a microscope that Al Gore sold you. Cycles up and cycles down!. For example over the 2000 years, we are only slightly, and I mean ever so slightly above average when looking at the evidence the trees give us. The MWP was not caused by humans and then temps dropped. For every article that you produce I can produce another peer reviewed article from another person that says the opposite. The reason for this is there is zero conciseness in science that these are man made events. Many will tell you as much, Including a weather expert like John Coleman. He knew much more than you on the subject as do many others. I will take their expert opinions. Sit down Mr. Gore!

    Lewri [1762864]

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 what about for this one?

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Can i have a list of scientists who were in this 97% consensus please.



    dont say we just have to accept its 97% because someone else i dont trust tells me so.

    Silly video
    Well feel free to read the paper which quotes contains all the relevant data or links to it. Do bear in mind though it's an analysis of thousands of papers.
    Last edited by Lewri on 20:58:34 - 19/03/18

    • PopadaPill [900338]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 91
    • Posts: 6,071
    • Karma: 3,820
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:04:29 - 19/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    LawOfOne [266775]

    No because there is bunk science and corruptible scientists. I have fallen for their tactics because I question it? LOL Ok guy!

    You can't prove anything anymore but when I know scientists are scared to talk about the fact that they think it's natural for temps to go up and down throughout time there is a problem. When the scientist that founded the Weather channel says its mostly bullshit, you should listen. No one has denied that man is a contributing factor but geo engineering that is happening all over the globe is a factor as well that can be stopped. Actually if you go read Al Gores quotes, he predicted doomsday type BS. Then you need to look at Physics and core samples to figure out that temps go up and they come down. It's natural. The studies that the establishment presented at the Paris talks and all the global warming(LOL) summits has been heavily criticized for lacking the scientific method and being cherry picked. this is widely available with a google search. I would also point to the climate study for ice loss scheduled a few months back but all the ships got stuck in Ice and the 17 million in their budget had to be spent on recovery. Its a joke man, stop with the BS.

    The Syrian war officially is because of Gas usage, thats why our troops are on the ground. However anyone not watching Corporate media already knew from 2013 that Assad does not use Gas and the UN inspectors confirmed this. The moderate rebels we support, which is really ISIS, pulled off the gas attacks and we use them to destabilize the region for our Wars for Profit. The defense contractors get rich, the bankers get rich from more loans for more war and they also get to set up central banks in the countries we destroy and there are competing oil pipelines in Syria. One is for our petro dollar and one is Russian to sell off our scam of a system and use their own currency, along with the Chinese. You have zero understanding of Geo Politics so you should not speak about them.

    Super computer???????? You want me to pour water on it?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    You absolutely should question the science and I am glad that you are! So, for example, regarding global warming. If you are questioning that current global warming trends are caused by humans, here is a bunch of evidence, in addition to the book I already sent you, showing how it is cause pretty much entirely by humans:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000028/full

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/full

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/abstract

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6

    Even if every single author in this list is a corrupt piece of shit, there is an abundance of data showing how global warming is caused by humans. If rather than questioning the science, you are accusing it of being wrong, you need to present evidence that shows why these studies are wrong. That is why I offered you the supercomputer, so that there is absolutely no excuse. You can either use data and evidence to prove these studies wrong, or stop making baseless accusations.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Antarctic core samples such as Vostok and the EPICA prove that the earths temps go up and they go down as do ice levels. You are looking at global warming(lol) through a microscope that Al Gore sold you. Cycles up and cycles down!. For example over the 2000 years, we are only slightly, and I mean ever so slightly above average when looking at the evidence the trees give us. The MWP was not caused by humans and then temps dropped. For every article that you produce I can produce another peer reviewed article from another person that says the opposite. The reason for this is there is zero conciseness in science that these are man made events. Many will tell you as much, Including a weather expert like John Coleman. He knew much more than you on the subject as do many others. I will take their expert opinions. Sit down Mr. Gore!

    Lewri [1762864]

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 what about for this one?

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Can i have a list of scientists who were in this 97% consensus please.



    dont say we just have to accept its 97% because someone else i dont trust tells me so.

    Silly video

    Lewri [1762864]

    Well feel free to read the paper which quotes contains all the relevant data or links to it. Do bear in mind though it's an analysis of thousands of papers.
    Should be easy find me a basically list of names who are always quoted in this magikal 97%

    though i have seen 96% quoted but never the names of those who switched.

    Last edited by PopadaPill on 21:17:34 - 19/03/18
    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 895
    • Karma: 394
    • Last Action: 24 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 02:05:11 - 21/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    You absolutely should question the science and I am glad that you are! So, for example, regarding global warming. If you are questioning that current global warming trends are caused by humans, here is a bunch of evidence, in addition to the book I already sent you, showing how it is cause pretty much entirely by humans:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000028/full

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/full

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/abstract

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6

    Even if every single author in this list is a corrupt piece of shit, there is an abundance of data showing how global warming is caused by humans. If rather than questioning the science, you are accusing it of being wrong, you need to present evidence that shows why these studies are wrong. That is why I offered you the supercomputer, so that there is absolutely no excuse. You can either use data and evidence to prove these studies wrong, or stop making baseless accusations.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Antarctic core samples such as Vostok and the EPICA prove that the earths temps go up and they go down as do ice levels. You are looking at global warming(lol) through a microscope that Al Gore sold you. Cycles up and cycles down!. For example over the 2000 years, we are only slightly, and I mean ever so slightly above average when looking at the evidence the trees give us. The MWP was not caused by humans and then temps dropped. For every article that you produce I can produce another peer reviewed article from another person that says the opposite. The reason for this is there is zero conciseness in science that these are man made events. Many will tell you as much, Including a weather expert like John Coleman. He knew much more than you on the subject as do many others. I will take their expert opinions. Sit down Mr. Gore!

    Lewri [1762864]

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 what about for this one?

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Can i have a list of scientists who were in this 97% consensus please.



    dont say we just have to accept its 97% because someone else i dont trust tells me so.

    Silly video

    Lewri [1762864]

    Well feel free to read the paper which quotes contains all the relevant data or links to it. Do bear in mind though it's an analysis of thousands of papers.

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Should be easy find me a basically list of names who are always quoted in this magikal 97%

    though i have seen 96% quoted but never the names of those who switched.

    I assume the "magikal 97%" you talk about is Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024). Your responses to me suggest that you appear to believe this was determined by deciding who was an expert on the matter and then going out and surveying those people, unfortunately its not as simple as that, instead they found ~4000 papers on anthropogenic global warming and found that 97.1% came to the conclusion that climate change was caused by humans. They then got authors of 11944 papers on climate change to self-rate their papers as to their position on AGW, out of the 64.5% who expressed an opinion, 97.2% came to the conclusion that it is caused by humans.

    As for the 96%, I'm unaware of a paper showing that (there is one showing 96.7% though) however the (small) variation in results between studies is not caused by change in the mind of the scientists but in the different methods used in the study, shuch as how many studies were looked at, what era of publishing was used (with more recent publishings leaning even more towards humans being the cause) and how you define AGW.

    tl;dr its not so simple as making a list of names

    • PopadaPill [900338]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 91
    • Posts: 6,071
    • Karma: 3,820
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 10:25:52 - 21/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Antarctic core samples such as Vostok and the EPICA prove that the earths temps go up and they go down as do ice levels. You are looking at global warming(lol) through a microscope that Al Gore sold you. Cycles up and cycles down!. For example over the 2000 years, we are only slightly, and I mean ever so slightly above average when looking at the evidence the trees give us. The MWP was not caused by humans and then temps dropped. For every article that you produce I can produce another peer reviewed article from another person that says the opposite. The reason for this is there is zero conciseness in science that these are man made events. Many will tell you as much, Including a weather expert like John Coleman. He knew much more than you on the subject as do many others. I will take their expert opinions. Sit down Mr. Gore!

    Lewri [1762864]

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 what about for this one?

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Can i have a list of scientists who were in this 97% consensus please.



    dont say we just have to accept its 97% because someone else i dont trust tells me so.

    Silly video

    Lewri [1762864]

    Well feel free to read the paper which quotes contains all the relevant data or links to it. Do bear in mind though it's an analysis of thousands of papers.

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Should be easy find me a basically list of names who are always quoted in this magikal 97%

    though i have seen 96% quoted but never the names of those who switched.

    Lewri [1762864]

    I assume the "magikal 97%" you talk about is Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024). Your responses to me suggest that you appear to believe this was determined by deciding who was an expert on the matter and then going out and surveying those people, unfortunately its not as simple as that, instead they found ~4000 papers on anthropogenic global warming and found that 97.1% came to the conclusion that climate change was caused by humans. They then got authors of 11944 papers on climate change to self-rate their papers as to their position on AGW, out of the 64.5% who expressed an opinion, 97.2% came to the conclusion that it is caused by humans.

    As for the 96%, I'm unaware of a paper showing that (there is one showing 96.7% though) however the (small) variation in results between studies is not caused by change in the mind of the scientists but in the different methods used in the study, shuch as how many studies were looked at, what era of publishing was used (with more recent publishings leaning even more towards humans being the cause) and how you define AGW.

    tl;dr its not so simple as making a list of names
    Who wrote the 11944 papers?Are they all named author?

    Might as well be quoting Viz comics to me.

    Whats your favourite fake space picture btw?
    Last edited by PopadaPill on 11:43:09 - 21/03/18
    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 895
    • Karma: 394
    • Last Action: 24 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 15:50:49 - 21/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 what about for this one?

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Can i have a list of scientists who were in this 97% consensus please.



    dont say we just have to accept its 97% because someone else i dont trust tells me so.

    Silly video

    Lewri [1762864]

    Well feel free to read the paper which quotes contains all the relevant data or links to it. Do bear in mind though it's an analysis of thousands of papers.

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Should be easy find me a basically list of names who are always quoted in this magikal 97%

    though i have seen 96% quoted but never the names of those who switched.

    Lewri [1762864]

    I assume the "magikal 97%" you talk about is Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024). Your responses to me suggest that you appear to believe this was determined by deciding who was an expert on the matter and then going out and surveying those people, unfortunately its not as simple as that, instead they found ~4000 papers on anthropogenic global warming and found that 97.1% came to the conclusion that climate change was caused by humans. They then got authors of 11944 papers on climate change to self-rate their papers as to their position on AGW, out of the 64.5% who expressed an opinion, 97.2% came to the conclusion that it is caused by humans.

    As for the 96%, I'm unaware of a paper showing that (there is one showing 96.7% though) however the (small) variation in results between studies is not caused by change in the mind of the scientists but in the different methods used in the study, shuch as how many studies were looked at, what era of publishing was used (with more recent publishings leaning even more towards humans being the cause) and how you define AGW.

    tl;dr its not so simple as making a list of names

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Who wrote the 11944 papers?Are they all named author?

    Might as well be quoting Viz comics to me.

    Whats your favourite fake space picture btw?
    Well if you truly want a list of several thousand scientific papers then here you go

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

    As for fake space picture, I do rather love this artist's impression of a black hole

    • PopadaPill [900338]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 91
    • Posts: 6,071
    • Karma: 3,820
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 15:51:56 - 21/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Can i have a list of scientists who were in this 97% consensus please.



    dont say we just have to accept its 97% because someone else i dont trust tells me so.

    Silly video

    Lewri [1762864]

    Well feel free to read the paper which quotes contains all the relevant data or links to it. Do bear in mind though it's an analysis of thousands of papers.

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Should be easy find me a basically list of names who are always quoted in this magikal 97%

    though i have seen 96% quoted but never the names of those who switched.

    Lewri [1762864]

    I assume the "magikal 97%" you talk about is Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024). Your responses to me suggest that you appear to believe this was determined by deciding who was an expert on the matter and then going out and surveying those people, unfortunately its not as simple as that, instead they found ~4000 papers on anthropogenic global warming and found that 97.1% came to the conclusion that climate change was caused by humans. They then got authors of 11944 papers on climate change to self-rate their papers as to their position on AGW, out of the 64.5% who expressed an opinion, 97.2% came to the conclusion that it is caused by humans.

    As for the 96%, I'm unaware of a paper showing that (there is one showing 96.7% though) however the (small) variation in results between studies is not caused by change in the mind of the scientists but in the different methods used in the study, shuch as how many studies were looked at, what era of publishing was used (with more recent publishings leaning even more towards humans being the cause) and how you define AGW.

    tl;dr its not so simple as making a list of names

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Who wrote the 11944 papers?Are they all named author?

    Might as well be quoting Viz comics to me.

    Whats your favourite fake space picture btw?

    Lewri [1762864]

    Well if you truly want a list of several thousand scientific papers then here you go

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

    As for fake space picture, I do rather love this artist's impression of a black hole

    Worth all the trillions.

    Is anyway to tell me how many times the word 'could' is used
    Last edited by PopadaPill on 15:53:08 - 21/03/18
    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 895
    • Karma: 394
    • Last Action: 24 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 15:04:36 - 22/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    Well feel free to read the paper which quotes contains all the relevant data or links to it. Do bear in mind though it's an analysis of thousands of papers.

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Should be easy find me a basically list of names who are always quoted in this magikal 97%

    though i have seen 96% quoted but never the names of those who switched.

    Lewri [1762864]

    I assume the "magikal 97%" you talk about is Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024). Your responses to me suggest that you appear to believe this was determined by deciding who was an expert on the matter and then going out and surveying those people, unfortunately its not as simple as that, instead they found ~4000 papers on anthropogenic global warming and found that 97.1% came to the conclusion that climate change was caused by humans. They then got authors of 11944 papers on climate change to self-rate their papers as to their position on AGW, out of the 64.5% who expressed an opinion, 97.2% came to the conclusion that it is caused by humans.

    As for the 96%, I'm unaware of a paper showing that (there is one showing 96.7% though) however the (small) variation in results between studies is not caused by change in the mind of the scientists but in the different methods used in the study, shuch as how many studies were looked at, what era of publishing was used (with more recent publishings leaning even more towards humans being the cause) and how you define AGW.

    tl;dr its not so simple as making a list of names

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Who wrote the 11944 papers?Are they all named author?

    Might as well be quoting Viz comics to me.

    Whats your favourite fake space picture btw?

    Lewri [1762864]

    Well if you truly want a list of several thousand scientific papers then here you go

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

    As for fake space picture, I do rather love this artist's impression of a black hole

    PopadaPill [900338]

    Worth all the trillions.

    Is anyway to tell me how many times the word 'could' is used
    If you mean in a specific article you can search using the F3 button on a PC, don't know about a mac. If you are saying this because you believe that they may just be expressing it as a probability rather than a likelihood then may I point you to Table 2 of Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) which defines stances on AGW, which is then backed up by the relevant figure in http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt for each paper.

    I'd also like to point out that many of these papers require only money to pay for the wages of the scientists to allow them to spend their time on these studies. Also, going back to an earlier point, when a scientific paper is published it usually wont just have one or two authors, in fact there was one paper on the Higgs Boson with 5154 authors.
    Last edited by Lewri on 15:10:42 - 22/03/18

    • Nekys [538682]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 35
    • Posts: 416
    • Karma: 220
    • Last Action: 1 month
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:41:10 - 22/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Maybe science is for sale, but not as much as god is
    • LawOfOne [266775]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 1,172
    • Karma: 272
    • Last Action: 4 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 02:19:18 - 23/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Because you never got the point of the thread even though I have outlined it 5 or 6 times??

    Entire Companies can either be bought or corrupt from top to bottom and put out misinformation.

    Global warming, oh boy....the earth is getting hotter, but it heats and cools in cycles that go well beyond our accurate data collecting. It goes up and it goes down. Have we influenced it, probably but the earth will be fine long after we are gone. No need to go all Al Gore panicking. The problem with this subject is there are many books, articles and videos from the science community that people are saying they are scared to not go with the status quo and agree but there is much evidence that the stuff they have been representing as facts about global warming have been falsified. Thats a big problem. If it was good data and the studies were good then the world would be over by now according to the Al Gores of the world. Geo Engineering has also not been taken into account either.

    Climate change is a good example if the science was really settled would the founder of Weather channel really be on TV saying Global warming/climate change is bullshit? If vaccines were safe and effective would giant parts of the population be questioning it? If tobacco was perfectly safe would people have turned on them? If glyphosate and GMOs were harmless would people really be riding monsantos nuts for decades? I don't hear anyone criticizing running, swimming, hiking or enjoying nature. Wanna know why? Because its fantastic for you and if it weren't there would be a large group of people bashing it because of bunk science. Don't act like Science is perfect, it's not.

    Come on man, science is dirty, has been bought many many many times and then they use the information to give us the "truth". Don't act like you have not idea what I am talking about. Cut the science is perfect stuff and stop being obtuse. All men can be bought.

    "you are just as qualified as anyone to collect data and build an argument showing how they are wrong" Well when the funds are made available to verify or confirm I am sure we will all be in line...

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Why are there giant parts of the population questioning scientific results? Because there are powerful, rich people who push the narrative that you cannot trust scientific results. They do this becuase if the people don't have an evidence-based way to determine the truth, then the only source of truth is what the powerful say. In your admirable attempts to avoid being manipulated by the powerful, you have actually fallen for their tactics.

    If you think that the climate change narrative is not true, prove it! The first step would be understanding it. Nobody said the world would be over by now, they said the temperatures would be warmer and that we would have more intense storms and droughts. That has all happened, there are even wars being fought right now because of global warming (in Syria). After you understand what you are investigating there is actually an enormous amount that you can do without any funds. All of the data collected is freely available online, and data collection is often the most expensive thing. Also, all of the principles that our understanding of climate change is based on are from classical physics, which people discovered during the 17th century. You can certainly afford the tools that they had available to them. If you don't trust climate models, you can build your own! Here is a free book to get you started and a link to where yo ucan download the data from all of the climate models currently in use, for free:

    http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783662489574

    https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/

    If you need a supercomputer to prove your points (another place where cost can be a barrier), I will let you use mine for free.

    Now, you don't have any more excuses, so don't come back until you have something to actually add to the conversation, baseless accusations and mistrust are a waste of time. Back up what you are saying with something meaningful.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    No because there is bunk science and corruptible scientists. I have fallen for their tactics because I question it? LOL Ok guy!

    You can't prove anything anymore but when I know scientists are scared to talk about the fact that they think it's natural for temps to go up and down throughout time there is a problem. When the scientist that founded the Weather channel says its mostly bullshit, you should listen. No one has denied that man is a contributing factor but geo engineering that is happening all over the globe is a factor as well that can be stopped. Actually if you go read Al Gores quotes, he predicted doomsday type BS. Then you need to look at Physics and core samples to figure out that temps go up and they come down. It's natural. The studies that the establishment presented at the Paris talks and all the global warming(LOL) summits has been heavily criticized for lacking the scientific method and being cherry picked. this is widely available with a google search. I would also point to the climate study for ice loss scheduled a few months back but all the ships got stuck in Ice and the 17 million in their budget had to be spent on recovery. Its a joke man, stop with the BS.

    The Syrian war officially is because of Gas usage, thats why our troops are on the ground. However anyone not watching Corporate media already knew from 2013 that Assad does not use Gas and the UN inspectors confirmed this. The moderate rebels we support, which is really ISIS, pulled off the gas attacks and we use them to destabilize the region for our Wars for Profit. The defense contractors get rich, the bankers get rich from more loans for more war and they also get to set up central banks in the countries we destroy and there are competing oil pipelines in Syria. One is for our petro dollar and one is Russian to sell off our scam of a system and use their own currency, along with the Chinese. You have zero understanding of Geo Politics so you should not speak about them.

    Super computer???????? You want me to pour water on it?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    You absolutely should question the science and I am glad that you are! So, for example, regarding global warming. If you are questioning that current global warming trends are caused by humans, here is a bunch of evidence, in addition to the book I already sent you, showing how it is cause pretty much entirely by humans:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000028/full

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/full

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/abstract

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6

    Even if every single author in this list is a corrupt piece of shit, there is an abundance of data showing how global warming is caused by humans. If rather than questioning the science, you are accusing it of being wrong, you need to present evidence that shows why these studies are wrong. That is why I offered you the supercomputer, so that there is absolutely no excuse. You can either use data and evidence to prove these studies wrong, or stop making baseless accusations.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Antarctic core samples such as Vostok and the EPICA prove that the earths temps go up and they go down as do ice levels. You are looking at global warming(lol) through a microscope that Al Gore sold you. Cycles up and cycles down!. For example over the 2000 years, we are only slightly, and I mean ever so slightly above average when looking at the evidence the trees give us. The MWP was not caused by humans and then temps dropped. For every article that you produce I can produce another peer reviewed article from another person that says the opposite. The reason for this is there is zero conciseness in science that these are man made events. Many will tell you as much, Including a weather expert like John Coleman. He knew much more than you on the subject as do many others. I will take their expert opinions. Sit down Mr. Gore!

    Quickdraw [915500]

    That is exactly right, the earths tempreature has cycled up and down in the past naturally. That does not mean that current warming is not caused by humans. It also does not mean thqt we should not worry. For example, during previous warm periods most of North America was underwater, it was a vast shallow sea! That would be a huge problem for us if the earth warms enough that it happens again. The reason we need to be concerned with current, human caused global warming is that our society was built around the current conditions. Most major cities are located near rivers so that they have a water supply. What will we do when the climate changes atmospheric circulation so that rainfall patterns change and the rivers are located in different places? What will we do when Florida is underwater? These are all things that will be incredibly expensive to deal with. It would be much cheaper to prevent these changes by stopping global warming now.

    I have been advocating that you investigate the science on your own so that you dont have to rely on an authority to tell you what to think because I think that is the best way to prevent the abuses of authority that you are worried about. But if you only want to trust an expert, I do in fact know what I am talking about. I am a scientist with a PhD who studies the impacts of global warming, so I am much more qualified to speak on the subject than John Coleman who only had a bachelors degree in journalism and based his views on things that are demonstrably false. If you can produce a bunch of peer reviewed articles that global warming is not caused by humans I would be happy to read them.
    Haha Global warming scientist, not that I would ever accept that without proof. There is absolutely zero consensus among the scientific community that man has caused Global warming because there is no evidence that man is the issue. Thats a fact, zero consensus. Facts are I would take someones opinion that has won awards and accomplished something beyond 3rd level Libtard indoctrination. I would look to solar activity, planetary orbit and geoengineering. But again I will certainly take John Coleman expert opinion as he has not been infected with Liberal indoctrination. Since when is one guy bucking the system when others are afraid to do so qualify for an authority figure? lol When 97%(bullshit alert) of scientists, in actuality agree about global warming then we can talk but until then your chosen profession will remain a joke.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#49ff2eae4c7c

    Funny the majority of "your colleagues" don't agree with your global warming hoax nonsense. "Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis" "They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling. These scientists are likely to ask, How can anyone take action if research is biased? "Highly flawed" are the words that come from scientists about the IPCC as of late. You can sit down now with your nonsensical global warming BS.

     

    • LawOfOne [266775]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 1,172
    • Karma: 272
    • Last Action: 4 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 02:20:29 - 23/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Nekys [538682]

    Maybe science is for sale, but not as much as god is
    Both for sale. I would argue that science is more believable that religion at this point in the west

     

    • LawOfOne [266775]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 1,172
    • Karma: 272
    • Last Action: 4 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 02:22:52 - 23/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Why are there giant parts of the population questioning scientific results? Because there are powerful, rich people who push the narrative that you cannot trust scientific results. They do this becuase if the people don't have an evidence-based way to determine the truth, then the only source of truth is what the powerful say. In your admirable attempts to avoid being manipulated by the powerful, you have actually fallen for their tactics.

    If you think that the climate change narrative is not true, prove it! The first step would be understanding it. Nobody said the world would be over by now, they said the temperatures would be warmer and that we would have more intense storms and droughts. That has all happened, there are even wars being fought right now because of global warming (in Syria). After you understand what you are investigating there is actually an enormous amount that you can do without any funds. All of the data collected is freely available online, and data collection is often the most expensive thing. Also, all of the principles that our understanding of climate change is based on are from classical physics, which people discovered during the 17th century. You can certainly afford the tools that they had available to them. If you don't trust climate models, you can build your own! Here is a free book to get you started and a link to where yo ucan download the data from all of the climate models currently in use, for free:

    http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783662489574

    https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/

    If you need a supercomputer to prove your points (another place where cost can be a barrier), I will let you use mine for free.

    Now, you don't have any more excuses, so don't come back until you have something to actually add to the conversation, baseless accusations and mistrust are a waste of time. Back up what you are saying with something meaningful.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    No because there is bunk science and corruptible scientists. I have fallen for their tactics because I question it? LOL Ok guy!

    You can't prove anything anymore but when I know scientists are scared to talk about the fact that they think it's natural for temps to go up and down throughout time there is a problem. When the scientist that founded the Weather channel says its mostly bullshit, you should listen. No one has denied that man is a contributing factor but geo engineering that is happening all over the globe is a factor as well that can be stopped. Actually if you go read Al Gores quotes, he predicted doomsday type BS. Then you need to look at Physics and core samples to figure out that temps go up and they come down. It's natural. The studies that the establishment presented at the Paris talks and all the global warming(LOL) summits has been heavily criticized for lacking the scientific method and being cherry picked. this is widely available with a google search. I would also point to the climate study for ice loss scheduled a few months back but all the ships got stuck in Ice and the 17 million in their budget had to be spent on recovery. Its a joke man, stop with the BS.

    The Syrian war officially is because of Gas usage, thats why our troops are on the ground. However anyone not watching Corporate media already knew from 2013 that Assad does not use Gas and the UN inspectors confirmed this. The moderate rebels we support, which is really ISIS, pulled off the gas attacks and we use them to destabilize the region for our Wars for Profit. The defense contractors get rich, the bankers get rich from more loans for more war and they also get to set up central banks in the countries we destroy and there are competing oil pipelines in Syria. One is for our petro dollar and one is Russian to sell off our scam of a system and use their own currency, along with the Chinese. You have zero understanding of Geo Politics so you should not speak about them.

    Super computer???????? You want me to pour water on it?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    You absolutely should question the science and I am glad that you are! So, for example, regarding global warming. If you are questioning that current global warming trends are caused by humans, here is a bunch of evidence, in addition to the book I already sent you, showing how it is cause pretty much entirely by humans:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000028/full

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/full

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/abstract

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6

    Even if every single author in this list is a corrupt piece of shit, there is an abundance of data showing how global warming is caused by humans. If rather than questioning the science, you are accusing it of being wrong, you need to present evidence that shows why these studies are wrong. That is why I offered you the supercomputer, so that there is absolutely no excuse. You can either use data and evidence to prove these studies wrong, or stop making baseless accusations.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Antarctic core samples such as Vostok and the EPICA prove that the earths temps go up and they go down as do ice levels. You are looking at global warming(lol) through a microscope that Al Gore sold you. Cycles up and cycles down!. For example over the 2000 years, we are only slightly, and I mean ever so slightly above average when looking at the evidence the trees give us. The MWP was not caused by humans and then temps dropped. For every article that you produce I can produce another peer reviewed article from another person that says the opposite. The reason for this is there is zero conciseness in science that these are man made events. Many will tell you as much, Including a weather expert like John Coleman. He knew much more than you on the subject as do many others. I will take their expert opinions. Sit down Mr. Gore!

    Quickdraw [915500]

    That is exactly right, the earths tempreature has cycled up and down in the past naturally. That does not mean that current warming is not caused by humans. It also does not mean thqt we should not worry. For example, during previous warm periods most of North America was underwater, it was a vast shallow sea! That would be a huge problem for us if the earth warms enough that it happens again. The reason we need to be concerned with current, human caused global warming is that our society was built around the current conditions. Most major cities are located near rivers so that they have a water supply. What will we do when the climate changes atmospheric circulation so that rainfall patterns change and the rivers are located in different places? What will we do when Florida is underwater? These are all things that will be incredibly expensive to deal with. It would be much cheaper to prevent these changes by stopping global warming now.

    I have been advocating that you investigate the science on your own so that you dont have to rely on an authority to tell you what to think because I think that is the best way to prevent the abuses of authority that you are worried about. But if you only want to trust an expert, I do in fact know what I am talking about. I am a scientist with a PhD who studies the impacts of global warming, so I am much more qualified to speak on the subject than John Coleman who only had a bachelors degree in journalism and based his views on things that are demonstrably false. If you can produce a bunch of peer reviewed articles that global warming is not caused by humans I would be happy to read them.

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    Let's say I accept the fact that you know what you are talking about, and I accept the fact that humans are to cause for the minor fluctuations in temperature that are currently causing climate change to be more robust than is attributable to natural factors... so what?

    The problem I have with all of this is that there is no practical fix that I can conceive of or have read about that is achievable in a manner that probably won't cause a major collapse of our economy and way of life.

    If we in the USA suddenly stopped eating meat... all of us, and stopped driving to work... all of us... and stopped doing everything we are doing (impossible really) what impact would that have? Maybe a global reduction of 20% for our carbon footprint... say 25%... but then we may as well give the keys to the Russians and Chinese to the White House, and all march lock step into the nearest ocean.

    We are a capitalist nation (I guess... we try to be, or we call ourselves one... not sure anymore), so the market will eventually fix the problem in the USA. Solar panels are popping up on every roof in my neighborhood. Hybrid cars are everywhere... laws are being past to end plastic use in retail... etc., etc. What else should we do doctor?

    I would love for someone with an actual plan to run for office. Not someone with anecdotes, campaign slogans, and rhetoric, but an actual thought out plan to show us during their campaigning that looks like it would work without ruin to the national economy. I would vote for that person regardless of party. But I have yet to see that person, because there is no plan... there is only using the issue as a wedge and political gain, and that is just as bad as denying there is a problem in my opinion.
    Nah! The answer is carbon taxes for the common man and Carbon credits

     

Reply
Thread Title: