Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
EverCurious452

what is missing in "The in-depth story behind climate fraud"

Recommended Posts

Yet another thread upstairs about climate change being a fraud (specially that the 97% of climate scientists agree ... is bad science).

 

There is certainly some truth to the idea that the 97% claim has gotten out of hand.    Science is often badly translated to politics.  But I think this misses the point.

 

I'm beeting most everyone, if not in fact literally everyone on this site has fire insurance on their home.  But the likelihood that your home will burn down is incredibly small.  So why take out the insurance?  Because risk is not just about the probability of the event, but also about the costs if the event occurs and the costs to mitigate the event. Fire insurance is inexpensive (due to fire not being very common) but the cost of replacing your entire home is huge, so the sensible thing is to take out a fire insurance policy.

 

Likewise with climate change.  I think there is very wide agreement that if sea level were to rise 10 ft, let alone 50 ft that would be so expensive as to deviate the world economy.  Suppose that event in the next 100 years is only 5% likely.  Given that generating power from wind and solar (plus energy storage) is LESS expensive than coal or natural gas, doesn't it make sense to deal with that risk by rapidly moving to non fossil fuel energy sources?   Given that the world has an appetite for sustainable energy doesn't it make sense for the US to be the suppler of such technology and hence make money from it (rather than trying to support the already rapidly declining coal industry)?

 

Getting hung up on just where the 97% figure comes from I think is a huge diversion from the real issues that we need to take action to protect ourselves from the RISKS (not the certainty) of climate change, and to make money from what is likely to be the largest industrial shift in history.

  • Confused 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hands of 97% of people who think your analysis is bonkers just went up. The other 3% we couldn't wake up from their drunken stupor which that theory put them into. Let's suppose there were no wind at all to obtain power, since we're supposing. Maybe there is also a 5% chance of the Sun never shining again. There goes solor energy down the drain. Why is it that America is being attacked with this 'The Sky is Falling' theory. By 2000, those same scientists told the UN that half the countries would be underwater. Here is it 2020 and what....okay, I'll give you Venice. Which by the way I have personally been to on vacation in the early 2000's and walked away from there with my suitcase over my head and water past my thighs because of flooding. So those reports are a blatant Lie. The floods are bad but not the worst ever. But you can believe what and how you want. That Global Warming is just another Tax like the Obama Care Bill on the path to globalization.  We don't need or want it why are you here anyway, when most of the world's supply of oil is coming from the Middle East. Are you protesting over there with your scientific theory? 

I see that the same as people who complain about the Iraqi government and seeing what some people seeing the same type of people vote to keep Pelosi(oops that slipped) in office. She helped wreck her state yet people praise her. Okay, I have a theory.....Trump is going to Win by a Landslide because we don't want, need, or care about Climate Change. I suppose all in all these are Acts of God. Ever hear of the Bible EverCurious45? I'm pretty sure you will find your climate somewhere in Matthew 24.......Pick it up, if you are indeed curious.......

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Flamtap said:

The hands of 97% of people who think your analysis is bonkers just went up. The other 3% we couldn't wake up from their drunken stupor which that theory put them into. Let's suppose there were no wind at all to obtain power, since we're supposing. Maybe there is also a 5% chance of the Sun never shining again. There goes solor energy down the drain.

So you really want to claim that the two statements

"there is at least a 5% chance that sea level will rise by 5-10ft over the next 100 years"

and

"Maybe there is a 5% chance of the Sun never shinning again"

really?

Quote

are equally valid? really?Why is it that America is being attacked with this 'The Sky is Falling' theory. By 2000, those same scientists told the UN that half the countries would be underwater. Here is it 2020 and what....

No its not the same.  Please site a reference that anyone has said by 2020 "half the countries would be underwater".  You focus on various doom statements, usually by the far right not any consensus of scientists when you should focus on the fact that since the man made global warming hypothesis was first proposed in the 70s it has never been refuted and only gets stronger.

 

Quote

okay, I'll give you Venice. Which by the way I have personally been to on vacation in the early 2000's and walked away from there with my suitcase over my head and water past my thighs because of flooding. So those reports are a blatant Lie. The floods are bad but not the worst ever.

It's not the "worst ever" that is important.  That is only one data point.  It's the average of the height of the floods and their frequency that is important, and both of those are clearly going up (not all from sea level rise since the city is sinking and has been for years).

 

Quote

But you can believe what and how you want. That Global Warming is just another Tax like the Obama Care Bill on the path to globalization. 

I have no idea what this means.  Sustainable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels so continuing to subsidize fossil fuels is the real tax.

and globalization is here, get used to it.

 

Quote

We don't need or want it why are you here anyway, when most of the world's supply of oil is coming from the Middle East. Are you protesting over there with your scientific theory? 

No one is forcing you to read what I post.  Is the mere possibility of coming across information contrary to your views so terrifying?

It is the consumers of fossil fuels that is the problem.  They only pump the oil due to having a ready source of buyers.

 

Quote

I see that the same as people who complain about the Iraqi government and seeing what some people seeing the same type of people vote to keep Pelosi(oops that slipped) in office. She helped wreck her state yet people praise her. Okay, I have a theory.....Trump is going to Win by a Landslide because we don't want, need, or care about Climate Change.

We'll see.

 

Quote

I suppose all in all these are Acts of God. Ever hear of the Bible EverCurious45? I'm pretty sure you will find your climate somewhere in Matthew 24.......Pick it up, if you are indeed curious.......

it is a major mistake to confuse the bible with a scientific text.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EverCurious452 said:

It is a major mistake to confuse the bible with a scientific text

 

Especially if you are relying on the scientific text. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No stopping this freight train without a global pandemic . So we adapt or die .

No big deal. I wonder what the next dominant species will be. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, EverCurious452 said:

So you really want to claim that the two statements

"there is at least a 5% chance that sea level will rise by 5-10ft over the next 100 years"

and

"Maybe there is a 5% chance of the Sun never shinning again"

really?

Oops, a phrase got lost, that should have been

 

So you really want to claim that the two statements

"there is at least a 5% chance that sea level will rise by 5-10ft over the next 100 years"

and

"Maybe there is a 5% chance of the Sun never shinning again"

are equally valid?  really?

 

The "are equally valid?" part got dropped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MYTH BUSTED: Climate Change “Consensus of Scientists” Is Idiotic

Courtney Kirchoff  Friday October 9 2015

ConsensusOfScientistsChart

 

Fun fact: lots of “global warming” charts only go back to the 1800s. But planet has been around longer than that…

 

Whenever you hear “a consensus of scientists agree” on anything, raise your hand and call them out on their pungent bovine feces. Science isn’t about polling, agreement, or popularity, it’s about truth and facts. At one time, a consensus of scientists agreed the Earth was flat. Didn’t make it flat. Later scientists agreed the Earth was the center of the universe. Didn’t make the Earth the center of the universe. Now we have a consensus of leftists who say Bruce Jenner is a woman because he feels like a woman. See where I’m going with this?

 

Science: finding truth and facts, not making agreements about feelings and public policy and guys wearing dresses while having penises.

 

Which isn’t to say consensus doesn’t have its place in the scientific process, but it should be used as a starting off point, better known as a “hypothesis,” which is either proven or disproven. The consensus cannot be the result. Results are the results. As in a dude with a Y-chromosome is still a dude, regardless of his brand of makeup or choices in handbags. True story.

 

Also, this is kind of inconvenient, but needs to be said. The “97% of Climate Scientists Agree” meme all the climate-change robots harp on and on about is actually a load of pure organic manure, better left to grow your weed than fuel your global warming climate change passions.

 

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

In other words:

 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Joseph Goebbels (Adolf Hitler’s Propagandist)

Put that in your ****** and smoke it. Remember that little tidbit when you insist unborn babies are not humans, especially when you refuse to look at any evidence. Tell me again about how much you respect science.

 

Also good to remember anytime somebody is pushing anything on you? Follow the money. ‘Cause guess what, kids? There’s a lot of money in saying the Earth is warming and it’s totes our fault…

From The National Review: In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.

In other words, if your hypothesis is “Climate change is caused by man and SUVs and George W. Bush (either one) and cow farts” you’ll get fat stacks of cash. But if your hypothesis is “Is man responsible for climate change, or does maybe the sun and naturally occurring fluctuating weather patterns or natural disasters like exploding volcanos have more do do with it?” you’ll be taken out back and beaten with hemp ropes and then body-shamed. Because science is about finding truth, not agendas. Got it?

 

Lastly, isn’t it funny how climate-change believers will automatically accuse climate-change deniers of being supported by BigOil? Here they are, funded by BIG GOVERNMENT and people like George Soros, and then they accuse you of being supported by BigOil, whether or not it’s true or as false as Bruce Jenner’s eye-lashes. Though he she is beautiful and stunning. Lawsuit averted. Pretty sure there’s an adage for that. Something about pots and kettles and black lives matter or something. Give me a minute, I’ll think of it…

 

… Nope, I’m just a racist.

 

The truth is there is zero truth allowed in the climate change debate. Ask a question of a climate-change believer and they’ll evade the question or repeat their mantras. Like this idiot of the Sierra Club when talking with Ted Cruz. Trigger warning: Cruz murders the man. It’s cold, calculated and down right brilliant. They ought to lock him up for twenty-five to life. You’ll love it.

 

Whenever debate is silenced, whenever someone with an opposing viewpoint is labeled as a “denier,” and whenever “supporters” call for the “deniers” imprisonment, you’re not dealing with science. You’re dealing with ideology, and a dangerous one at that.

 

globaldeniersprison

 

Yes really.

Written by Courtney Kirchoff and Steven Crowder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Courtney Kirchoff

With all the right wing ranting in that piece why would you take it as objective?  Are you looking for truth or just for reinforcement of your preconceptions? (there is a tremendous amount of the latter on this site in my view and little of the former).

 

If you want to make a claim of science (such as it was) getting it wrong about geocentrism in the 16th century you also have to include that it was science that corrected its error.  And that is the real issue.  What leads a theory to become accepted is that it lasts and the evidence gets stronger and stronger for it.  Geocentrism had major flaws from the outset but of course it had the church behind it.   Man made global warming was proposed in the 70s and has yet to be refuted.  No one has shown another mechanism that can explain the warming (and yes solar variation and volcanos HAVE been examined and they are not enough even combined).

 

If this huge so called leftist money is causing so many papers to be written claiming man made global warming then how can the count of such papers be so low?  Both of these claims can not be true, they could however both be false.

 

Quote

Which isn’t to say consensus doesn’t have its place in the scientific process, but it should be used as a starting off point, better known as a “hypothesis,” which is either proven or disproven

This shows how little he knows about science.  Things in the real world can not be proven. Often they can be disproven or refuted by showing a flaw in the theory.  An hypothesis in science gains or loses support through Bayesian Reasoning in which a hypothesis gains support if an actual observation (like the ocean is warming and becoming more acidic) is more likely if that hypothesis were true and it loses support if the observation would be less likely if the hypothesis is true.  But you can never get to 100% certainty.  We could all be brains in jars after all (-Shawn Carol).  We must always allow for the possibility, no matter how small, that we could be wrong.

 

It seems obvious to me that the man made global warming hypothesis is sufficiently likely to be true and the consequences sufficiently costly to our civilization to take steps to mitigate that risk to the extent that we can especially since even if it's false those steps will be most profitable.  For most of earths existence it has been far hotter or far colder than during the tiny span of human existence. But that temperate climate during our time has made living far easier than it otherwise would be (we likely wouldn't even be here otherwise).  We may have to adapt to a radically different climate someday, but it seems utter folly to hasten that outcome.

Edited by EverCurious452

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No increase in global temperature variability despite changing regional patterns

Evidence from Greenland ice cores shows that year-to-year temperature variability was probably higher in some past cold periods1, but there is considerable interest in determining whether global warming is increasing climate variability at present2,3,4,5,6. This interest is motivated by an understanding that increased variability and resulting extreme weather conditions may be more difficult for society to adapt to than altered mean conditions3. So far, however, in spite of suggestions of increased variability2, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether it is occurring7. Here we show that although fluctuations in annual temperature have indeed shown substantial geographical variation over the past few decades2, the time-evolving standard deviation of globally averaged temperature anomalies has been stable. A feature of the changes has been a tendency for many regions of low variability to experience increases, which might contribute to the perception of increased climate volatility. The normalization of temperature anomalies2 creates the impression of larger relative overall increases, but our use of absolute values, which we argue is a more appropriate approach, reveals little change. Regionally, greater year-to-year changes recently occurred in much of North America and Europe. Many climate models predict that total variability will ultimately decrease under high greenhouse gas concentrations, possibly associated with reductions in sea-ice cover. Our findings contradict the view that a warming world will automatically be one of more overall climatic variation.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Markinsa said:

our use of absolute values, which we argue is a more appropriate approach, reveals little change. 

Little change in variability, they acknowledge warming..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This shows how little he knows about science. 

 

So now you're a scientist as well EverCurious452? And what does it matter how many papers are written on either side. The Global Warming/Climate Change myth rides waves of falsehood. Let's put it this way.....you can believe how you want EverCurious452 and write a post using all the $15 words you want. That does not effect me one bit. 

 

Break down and disavow/disprove Matthew 24 (if you can). I can almost bet you will try and disavow the Word of God but you can't disprove it even with your so called science or scientist......at any one point. For in it you will find a Global WARNING......Not a Global Warming........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flamtap said:

This shows how little he knows about science. 


So now you're a scientist as well EverCurious452?

No I'm an engineer.  You do not have to be a scientist to have read enough to know how science works.

 

Quote

And what does it matter how many papers are written on either side.

Science is how we find out what is so in the world.  You are trusting it everyone you flip on a light or get in your car or fly in a plane or any of the other innumerable things we use every day that science has created.  Seeing that there is a long standing consensus on an issue is how we tell how well it is accepted as settled science.  Many things are hypothesized but turn out to be false (global warming is not one of them).

 

Quote

The Global Warming/Climate Change myth rides waves of falsehood. Let's put it this way.....you can believe how you want EverCurious452 and write a post using all the $15 words you want. That does not effect me one bit. 

So your mind is made up and your position has nothing to do with science and nothing will change it.  Ok.

 

Quote

Break down and disavow/disprove Matthew 24 (if you can). I can almost bet you will try and disavow the Word of God but you can't disprove it even with your so called science or scientist......at any one point. For in it you will find a Global WARNING......Not a Global Warming........

You have stated you will never change your mind even on issues of science so obviously you are not open to what science might have to say about religion.

Edited by EverCurious452

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, EverCurious452 said:

You have stated you will never change your mind even on issues of science so obviously you are not open to what science might have to say about religion.

I will address this part of your comment

Evercurious452. No I don't leave and put my trust in every little scientific fact scientists come up with. Actually, what science has to say about religion doesnt interest me either. I didn't and don't trust what it says about man evolving from monkeys.....how can I....when the only thing I've seen a monkey evolve into is surprisingly a monkey. I am not religious but you can despite that fact with someone else. I am Saved. That has to do with Salvation.  Don't know what your science says about that and you're right. I'm not going to change my mind. Religion is Man's attempt to reach God, Salvation is God teaching out to man.....however, it is only to and for those who believe and have Faith in Jesus. God who created everything, can not be figured out via science. So the events that are occurring in today's world which the scientist are trying to figure out what is going on and how. Earthquakes, Volcanos, Storms, Fires, Lakes and Rivers drying up, the Sun singing, sinkholes, I could go on. Scientists don't have a clue. Sk they come up with ever changing theories. 

I can go with the Big Bang.....where did the Bang come from.....I guess they did figure out out of chaos  comes order? I've seen enough Big Bangs in the Middle East to know that anything that comes after a Big Bang is either Death, Destruction or Both. And I'm to take it that scientist have those facts right? As a saying goes.....'they can miss me with that mess'. 

Mind you, I totally RESPECT and I mean that with ALL sincerity......No joke, no pun, or anything of the like. I just can not get on that scientific band wagon. Not when have literally seen miracles which No Scientist can figure out nor have explanations for..... or will they ever. 

 

I will close with this.....I can tell you my respect for you is genuine......my love is as well.....you have shown Grace, Respect throughout this dialogue.  Which make me appreciate you even more. May you and your Loved Ones Be Blessed.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flamtap said:

I didn't and don't trust what it says about man evolving from monkeys.....how can I....when the only thing I've seen a monkey evolve into is surprisingly a monkey.

....

I can go with the Big Bang.....where did the Bang come from.....I guess they did figure out out of chaos  comes order? I've seen enough Big Bangs in the Middle East to know that anything that comes after a Big Bang is either Death, Destruction or Both. And I'm to take it that scientist have those facts right? As a saying goes.....'

The interesting thing here (to me) is that while you say

 

Quote

 God who created everything, can not be figured out via science

You can't just leave it at that.   Instead you try and poke holes in evolution or the big bang etc from a worldly perspective.  As if you see contradictions and problems in the scientific domain that the scientists working in those areas do not see.  Of course your critiques have been answered and debunked a vast number of times   Such discussions are available from many credible sources online so I won't go into them.  My point is that you seem to want it both ways.  Its not enough to believe science has it wrong in some fashion because it contractions some aspect of your faith, you have to have some sort of logical worldly hook to hang your contradiction on. 

 

Quote

I will close with this.....I can tell you my respect for you is genuine......my love is as well.....you have shown Grace, Respect throughout this dialogue.  Which make me appreciate you even more. May you and your Loved Ones Be Blessed.  

Thank you for that.  While I do not believe in any god, I do agree that the prescriptions for living offered in many religions make sense and treating others as you would like to be treated is one of them.    How can I expect others to be respectful of me if I do offer the same to them?  I find that eminently logical.  So while I might (and often do) argue with the views someone holds (and that is in fact what brought me to this site to see why people believe in the "RV" when to me it is obviously impossible), I try to not let that spill over to disrespect for the person.  Be well Flamtap.

Edited by EverCurious452

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, thank you EverCurious452. My God makes the Impossible......Possible.  You shall see shortly.....RV is certainly in order and also falls in line with Biblical passages of events to come upon the Earth. Though you don't Believe, I will continually pray for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whatsfordinar? said:

879400904_globalwarninglie.jpg.2bd9de9ac41f649990efdb9382aa40b8.jpg

 

Note the headline is that the UN (as an organization) predicted... but even the quote used to supposedly support this shows it was just one person who "says" this.  People say a lot of silly stuff.   Has the official UN Climate report every stated this?  I don't think so.  By the way the Solomon Islands are losing a lot of land due to sea level rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EC,  I guessed you might be engineer .   I am retired EE.  John Stossel is entertaining speaker but I think he often distorts the facts just to be entertaining..  Sea level rise and climate change are a fact ..  I live in costal Florida and experience the effect at high tide at least 4 times a year.  ( street flooding generally,  ) During King tides.  

I prefer to avoid Politics and Religion on DV ,   now will add Global warming and sea level rise.

For decades the doomsayers have predicted one life ending crisis or another , but somehow we have "engineered " a way out. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.