Whats important (1 Viewer)

[jpl458]

Just read a study out of Denmark that hints that ocean currents, like the Gulf Stream, could slow dramatically and possibly shut down by as early as 2025. But what is really important here, is to find Hunter Biden's lap top.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I'm sure prosecuting Trump is way more important than "global warming," right?

 

[jpl458]

I believe that he broke the law, and it's documented. If we don't prosecute Trump, then maybe we shouldn't prosecute anyone. I was taught in 8th grade that no one is above the law. I wonder when the right will start worrying about the people of this country, rather than revenge. Jordan's committee is turning up zip, zero, nada. All the right does is Project their views onto everyone else. I think we should exume Harding and prosecute him for the TeaPot Dome scandal.

 

[AccessBlaster]

All we can do is let the politics play out.

 

[jpl458]

When I said Trump broke the law, it should have read, there is enough evidence that he broke the law in several situations. But he is innocent until proven guilty. I would expect the same for anyone, regardless of what end of the spectrum they call home.

I'd rather see the Law playout.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I'd rather see the Law playout.

Me too, not sure if that's possible with Merrick Garland at the helm, but we'll see.

 

[jpl458]

The person to be worried about is Jack Smith, not Garland. All Carland did was to say "proceed". He has no other control over an investigation.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Isaac]

Just read a study out of Denmark that hints that ocean currents, like the Gulf Stream, could slow dramatically and possibly shut down by as early as 2025. But what is really important here, is to find Hunter Biden's lap top.

They've been saying it'll be doomsday in __ number of years (usually 5, 10 or 15) since 1970.
Between that an televangelists predicting the end times, Take it with a grain of salt

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Pat Hartman]

I believe that he broke the law

I'm sure if we keep looking we will eventually find some law he broke and some lawsuit will finally put him in jail. Don't forget the Stalin era saying "Show me the man and I'll find you a crime". (OK, I paraphrased)

I sure hope for your sake that you don't live in NY and that no woman (or man, let's not be sexist) from your past has a vendetta against you because as long as the law that the NY Legislature put in place specifically so that the Bergdolf woman could accuse Trump of ra**, is still in effect, YOU are in jeopardy. Since no proof of wrongdoing is actually required to bring suit, it is the perfect "law". It can be applied against the people we don't like at will just to embarrass them.

I love the way that RFK, Jr's been whining about having his speech suppressed by the left and yet he has no trouble at all with attempting to suppress the speech of Hannity and other talking heads he disagrees with You go for it RFK, call for all the boycotts you want, the Democrats don't recognize hyprocasy even when it is coming out of their own mouths. Just stop complaining that they are suppressing your right to speak.

Just read a study out of Denmark that hints that ocean currents, like the Gulf Stream, could slow dramatically and possibly shut down by as early as 2025

That's old news. Maybe that's why the deadline is just two years away. I'd sell my house on Martha's Vineyard in a hurry, Mr Obama Yes, melting all the glaciers on Greenland will add enough fresh water to the ocean to stop the North Atlantic conveyor system of which the Gulf stream is the part that brings the warm water up from the Gulf of Mexico to moderate the temperature of the British Isles and western europe. It will also cover most of Florida in water. I'm pretty sure this was first reported 50 years ago. And it actually did happen around 400,000 years ago. Greenland was green and not covered by an ice sheet for approximately 11,000 years during that period.

It is not likely that anyone here would dispute the concept of "climate change". The climate has been changing throughout the history of the earth. But, the first modern humans didn't appear until about 100,000 years ago in Africa - this makes us all Africans BTW. And it has been less than 100 years that we've been putting measurable amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So, what/who was the proximate cause of all the previous ice ages/warm ages? Have you read any of the studies that warming of the earth by a couple of degrees would actually be a boon to mankind due to the increased vegetation that would result and the larger land mass that would be habitable year round?

Once the left can separate "climate change" from "humans are the proximate cause", we can have a rational discussion and actually plan for a future with Florida gone, no land bridge connecting North and South America, and NYC under water. I don't hold much hope of this happening any time soon because these are the same people who bought into the "masks stop virus'" lie and who went into hiding for two years. People who will believe that you must wear your mask while walking around in a restaurant to prevent catching COVID but you are "safe" while you are sitting, will believe anything the government tells them "If you like your doctor, you can keep him" comes to mind as another of the left's great lies to the American public.

 

[GaP42]

It is OK, according to you, to accept rapid climate change. Do you think the changes in climate in the past were as rapid as those we are facing now?
Are you OK to accept the impacts of climate change upon your children?
- Do you see these impacts being negative? Lets forget Florida and the rich, or those living in Martha's vineyard. How about those living in Tuvalu
- The impact upon property is one, what about disease and health?
- You seem comfortable with the impact upon agriculture, and nature/ecosystems. How confident are you all will turn out well if no action is taken?

Are you prepared to accept that CO2 level are rising?
Are CO2 levels rising due to human activity?
Does increased CO2 have an effect upon climate? (Good or Bad)
Do you accept that climate scientists have a better grasp of the situation than you?
Do you think applying the methods of science is a legitimate approach to gathering data, analysing data and advising on the likely impacts through the models they develop?

Science is based on models - all the way down. Every equation relating physical quantities (eg F-=ma) is based on observation and application of the scientific method to develop theories - such as F=ma - which can and do break down under more rigorous evaluation.
But they remain good for predicting things.
What critical thinking skills do you applying in working out what is valid and what is not? I hope you do not decide, where you stand and then cherry-pick just the bits that suit your argument.
We do rely upon others for guidance, and we need to consider their veracity - eg I could not consider a President recommending injecting bleach to combat the spread of COVID. And that to me speaks to how much weight I could put to any views he proposes. (but that is another topic)
Engagement in scientific research does not work that way. We have biases - but we try to account for them. Based on observations, predictions are made - which then infers that we should find evidence according to the prediction - in support or invalidating the prediction/hypothesis. That approach has lead to quite a bit of progress don't you think?
I came across this discussion analysing the question of: How We Determine What to Believe as True - NeuroLogica Blog (theness.com)

And yes we can feel disempowered against the weight of the problem and the extent of our contribution versus others - but does that abrogate our responsibility. Do we do nothing? Seems that is a poor argument.
I think of community programmes to clean up the rubbish in our neighbourhood. Too much for one, but collectively we can. And it encourages others to do more themselves.
I am sure I could do more in terms of energy and fuel use - but it does not mean the little I do should be derided by others and used as an excuse by others to do nothing.
What is important? ... What plans/actions can we take now to minimise the impacts.

 

[Jon]

Do you accept that climate scientists have a better grasp of the situation than you?

If you accept that climate scientists have a better grasp of the situation than you, what do you do if there is disagreement between them? It is like football pundits. Each pundit often has a lifetime of experience in their field, yet they are frequently in disagreement and arguing amongst themselves.

Also, it is a logical fallacy to claim something is true because an expert says it is true. The merit of an argument is based on the argument itself, not the authority of the individuals participating in that argument.

Many will argue that there are so many climate scientists saying climate change is real. But that is an altogether different argument to saying most of that climate change is caused by humans in the last 200 years. It is common to set up a strawman argument that those who dispute that climate change exists are loonies who are denying the data. Yet that is not the position that many skeptics take. Instead, they debate whether or not the human contribution to climate change is significant enough to warrant the policies that go along with it.

An important question to ask, in my view, is how many of these climate scientists are financially incentivised to perpetuate their belief that climate change is mostly caused by humans? Consider the fact that many cannot get a grant unless they tie it into the narrative that climate change is caused by humans.

What is my personal view? I think it is open for debate. Climate change may be mostly caused by humans, but I am skeptical that there is enough evidence to support it, so far. Why? Frequent cases of climate scientists overreaching in their conclusions, including the climate models, Al Gore, Climategate controversies and so on. Throw in the hypocrasy of many of the promoters or alarmists, such as Lewis Hamilton who used to have his own private jet, is in a fuel guzzling sport, has a massive speedboat and is sponsored by petroleum companies. How about John Kerry, who's wife used to have her own aircraft. If they really believed in what they say, why would they break the rules themselves and further the damage to the planet?

 

[NauticalGent]

Also, it is a logical fallacy to claim something is true because an expert says it is true. The merit of an argument is based on the argument itself, not the authority of the individuals participating in that argument.

Nicely stated. In fact, that whole post is great.

 

[moke123]

Do you think the changes in climate in the past were as rapid as those we are facing now?

Another question similar to this is, Do you believe the climate changes in the past were caused by the same conditions as today?

 

[GaP42]

There is always disagreement in science - not to the extent of a flat earth! - but the work of so many outweighs that of a few. The arguments of the few need to be skeptically assessed. There are outliers ... even Linus Pauling who contributed good science was a crank in areas he did not have expertise (Vitamin C mega-dosing). You do need to consider fields of expertise.

A while it is a logical fallacy to simply rely on the expert - you cannot be the expert in every case - you do rely on expertise beyond your capacity in every aspect (almost) of your life - finance, health, engineers, ... You still have to make a judgement, and I would hope one that is based on rational thought.

So you do not think that the increased CO2 is from human activity? (A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org)
And/ or
You do not think that increased CO2 has an effect upon climate? (How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming? - You Asked (columbia.edu))

Re financial incentives - and how many people / organisations have an interest in denying fossil fuels/ high energy consumption lifestyles have a vested interest in spreading misinformation? Do you feel that we would have been better off not investigating the observation of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere and considering impacts? What regulation would you put in place to limit the capacity of scientists to investigate questions of this nature? Going down thayt path would be a slippery slope. However irrespective of that the process of science of review / replication/ test gets you to a better understanding than .. not investigating.

The progress of science is not on the basis of pre-determined conclusions - or do you not understand the scientific method?

 

[Jon]

There is always disagreement in science - not to the extent of a flat earth! - but the work of so many outweighs that of a few. The arguments of the few need to be skeptically assessed. There are outliers ... even Linus Pauling who contributed good science was a crank in areas he did not have expertise (Vitamin C mega-dosing). You do need to consider fields of expertise.

The arguments of all need to be skeptically assessed, not the few. Do you not understand the scientific method? Furthermore, there are also plenty of cranks in areas where they have expertise.

A while it is a logical fallacy to simply rely on the expert - you cannot be the expert in every case - you do rely on expertise beyond your capacity in every aspect (almost) of your life - finance, health, engineers, ... You still have to make a judgement, and I would hope one that is based on rational thought.

I agree, make a judgement based on rational thought. And that rational thought, for me, is based on the argument itself regardless of the expertise. If you think this is wrong, and you want to discount the argument of the non-expert, what if the non-expert makes the same argument as an expert? You see the problem there.

So you do not think that the increased CO2 is from human activity? (A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org)
And/ or
You do not think that increased CO2 has an effect upon climate? (How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming? - You Asked (columbia.edu))

I think you have misunderstood my position. Re-read this:

"Many will argue that there are so many climate scientists saying climate change is real. But that is an altogether different argument to saying most of that climate change is caused by humans in the last 200 years. It is common to set up a strawman argument that those who dispute that climate change exists are loonies who are denying the data. Yet that is not the position that many skeptics take. Instead, they debate whether or not the human contribution to climate change is significant enough to warrant the policies that go along with it."

I am not stating CO2 does or does not have an effect on climate, and that it is not caused by humans. I am stating that the climate alarmists keep misrepresenting the arguments of climate skeptics. You have done something similar here, despite me pointing out that this misrepresentation keeps happening. Read this sentence again and notice the highlight so you don't skip over that important word:

"But that is an altogether different argument to saying most of that climate change is caused by humans in the last 200 years."

Let us assume that humans cause CO2, it is increasing and causing climate change. This begs the question of what proportion of climate change is caused by the human element? The fact you were asking these questions suggest you are missing the point many skeptics are making, which is there is debate over whether the CO2 element is causing 5% of the change, 10%, 50% or 90%?

Re financial incentives - and how many people / organisations have an interest in denying fossil fuels/ high energy consumption lifestyles have a vested interest in spreading misinformation? Do you feel that we would have been better off not investigating the observation of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere and considering impacts? What regulation would you put in place to limit the capacity of scientists to investigate questions of this nature? Going down thayt path would be a slippery slope. However irrespective of that the process of science of review / replication/ test gets you to a better understanding than .. not investigating.

It is very difficult to get a grant if it is to go against the prevailing climate change narrative.

I feel that we should investigate these things. I would put no limit on the capacity of scientists to investigate questions of this nature. What I wouldn't do is effectively prevent scientists from investigating the opposing view. That is politics, not science.

The progress of science is not on the basis of pre-determined conclusions - or do you not understand the scientific method?

I believe that the progress of science is hampered by climate alarmists suggesting that the science is settled. This is contrary to the scientific method. Instead, it is a vilification of those scientists who do not agree with the majority view. Trying to liken them to holocaust deniers suggests to me that they are doing everything possible to suppress rigorous skepticism, which is an inherent part of the scientific method.

It seems that you believe science should be based on a vote: the majority wins. Following that argument, you would have said that climate alarmists were cranks 30 years ago, because they were the minority view. Now they are the majority view, you believe they are not cranks. You would end up having to argue that you were wrong, and that using a vote is not the way to decide if the scientists are right or not, since you had to change your mind based on that voting method. But wait, you are still using that method because the vote caused you to change your mind! That is one flawed logical loop if I ever saw one!

 

[Mike Krailo]

Science is based on models - all the way down. Every equation relating physical quantities (eg F-=ma) is based on observation and application of the scientific method to develop theories - such as F=ma - which can and do break down under more rigorous evaluation.
But they remain good for predicting things.

For those that believe in evolution and that all living things just came to be out of randomness (no creator). Did it require yours or anyone's belief to happen? No. Did it require you do anything? No. Can any scientist or living being even create life from nothing, control the weather, or know your time of death? No. We're not talking about being tied down to a train track or an asteroid collision path calculation. This is something way outside the bounds of predictive ability. We are all going to die. Just not from some feared doomsday model of the climate change. It's not so much belief that matters as much as it is common sense. The odds of winning the lottery is so high, and yet when the jackpot reaches 1 billion, millions of people flock to buy tickets anyway (including myself). We believe we are going to win and don't mind if we lose since the cost is relatively low. But if we had to pay a much higher price for the tickets, how many tickets would be sold? Zero.

Back to those pesky models, those models are subject to manipulation and omission of key variables and key data that are simply not available because they cannot be observable in the future or distant past. Unless you have gotten this data via time travel, that argument doesn't even come close to making a lick of sense.

Number 5, from the Umbrella Academy sees future destruction during his time travel and tries to warn his siblings before it's too late.

It's possible to force an outcome from the model by ones extrapolation of data either in the past or future. Just keep tweaking the model until you get the results you are looking for. Then stop tweaking. Just leave out some data and use the data that suits the outcome so we can scare the hell out everyone to act irrationally about something they have absolutely no control over. Next, pass the model around to a bunch of other scientists so they can all revel in the scary outcome if we don't do something about it. If they were able to precisely predict weather events and exact paths of tornadoes and hurricanes, their climate model might have a leg to stand on, but they are telling the biggest lie ever. Just trust our model, it has been agreed upon by all good scientists. Just trust us because we use the scientific method to prove our theories. And we never make mistakes.

And let's say the models were close enough to warrant some type of action. Who gets to wield the power of this corrective action? Where are the most infractions being committed? Shouldn't a large part of the action come from China? If you think you can control and convince China that your model is the end all be all, then go right ahead. Let's see how far that goes. Our countries did everything in our power to prevent this, what does the model show is going to happen if China does not? What does the model show if we end up in nuclear war scenario first?

If you think you control the weather with any precision at all in the span of many years do to you individual or collective actions, your a fool. We have satellite imagery that shows what is going on in Realtime and they still cannot fully predict where a hurricane will end up after they have seen the hurricane form and start tracking a path. Try predicting future hurricanes with any precision at all with any climate model or any model at all. Then come back and tell me about the infallible climate model. I'm supposed to believe that they have cracked the code on overall climate of the earth via extrapolation of currently observable data? The amount of variables that would go into something like this to be predictive and accurate would be astronomical and unknowable to begin with. Even one thing left out will skew the results dramatically.

So unlike the lottery ticket that has little cost to the individual playing and many are willing to play and believe they will win, we now have a scientifically proofed doomsday model being shoved down our throats creating maximum fear in the young and weaker individuals among us, all in an effort to get us to give up all freedoms and rights for the survivability of humanity. What was it that Roosevelt said again...

We do rely upon others for guidance, and we need to consider their veracity - eg I could not consider a President recommending injecting bleach to combat the spread of COVID. And that to me speaks to how much weight I could put to any views he proposes. (but that is another topic)

Well if that isn't a cherry picked piece of misinformation, I don't know what is. He said no such thing. At the time, no one in the world knew exactly how to combat the virus and he was literally being open about things their team were looking into on camera. This was clearly the brain storming stage of possible idea's to LOOK INTO. At no time did he recommend the injection of bleach or was the word bleach used. That whole thing came from the corrupt media that twisted what trump actually said to attack him like they always do. The media love to paint him as someone bad and corrupt while they themselves are just exactly that. The word used by the way, was disinfectant.

Disinfectant: An agent, such as heat, radiation, or a chemical, that destroys, neutralizes, or inhibits the growth of disease-carrying microorganisms.

Context is everything if you are going to quote someone. He did say it sounds interesting. At that point, we all were hoping someone in the medical community would come up with a solution to fight this thing and the president was very open minded about possible solutions which in my mind is a very good thing. I find that kind of transparency to be very refreshing as apposed to just telling everyone that we're working on it. And just leave it to our imaginations. All great success first comes with many many failures. If you choose to focus in on the failures to judge a person, then you fail to recognize that failure is part of the process to success.

 

[Cotswold]

Keep it simple, maintain the fear.

That is the mantra of all politicians, pollsters, scientists, epidemiologists calling themselves scientists and not forgetting the deciples of the likes of Greta Thumbrain all follow. It is a big wheel rolling with lots of money if you get the words in the right order.
Knowledge and truth is a mystery to most of them. It is what they must always ignore, in order to avoid creating confusion.

 

[Jon]

That is the mantra of all politicians, pollsters, scientists, epidemiologists calling themselves scientists and not forgetting the deciples of the likes of Greta Thumbrain all follow.

How does Greta travel around the world, on a bicycle or something? She has a way larger carbon footprint than I do!