Climate Change Report

[DC_Vol]

Imagine that...

Didn’t this happen a long time ago?

Edit: it did...in 2013

I just read up on this guy again. I remember when this happened and thinking how dumb the people at EPA are. This could be Babylon Bee material.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Honestly surprised to learn that they have trash collection in ecuador.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

There is a mountain of scholarly papers on the topic, so I don't know what more "proof" you think you're going to get. What specifically about the evidence and arguments in the following link would you consider to be incorrect?

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

NASA article. Definitely an unbiased source. Look you and some others can go on and on about humans and climate change. But the fact is nobody knows with any certainty how much of an impact we actually are having. The sun is more powerful than anything we humans can even fathom.

 

[Wafflestomper]

NASA article. Definitely an unbiased source.

If you think the information NASA provided is wrong then let's hear why. Concluding that the information is wrong because of where it came from is a genetic fallacy.

Look you and some others can go on and on about humans and climate change. But the fact is nobody knows with any certainty how much of an impact we actually are having.

I can't link the whole article here since you have to subscribe to read it, but Nature actually does quantify it. You can read the abstract if you like.

Assessing the observed impact of anthropogenic climate change

The sun is more powerful than anything we humans can even fathom.

I'm not sure why you believe this. Solar irradiance is quantified in the NASA link I provided. Again, do you have evidence that they are wrong?

 

[FLVOL_79]

I only followed your logic to its conclusion. If everything made by man is flawed, and you (a man) made that statement, it follows that it is flawed (modus ponens). This is deductive reasoning.




So you dont have any evidence of fraud then? No one cares that scientists are paid; we care when they're being dishonest. I'm asking for proof of the uniform dishonesty in climate change research that so many on here (including you) allude to.

I never said anything was fraudulent. Freudian slip on your part? I said almost 0 of their predictions have come true, which is true. Try and keep up.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

And pretty much 100% of psychiatrists classified homosexuality as a mental illness from the beginning of psychiatry until less than 50 years ago.

And that has absolutely NO relevance to this issue. Pure ignorance

 

[MG1968]

And that has absolutely NO relevance to this issue. Pure ignorance

The relevance is that sometimes scientists are wrong, even when there’s a consensus.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I never said anything was fraudulent. Freudian slip on your part? I said almost 0 of their predictions have come true, which is true. Try and keep up.

Yes, you said that. And I asked you for clarification, which you never provided. See below.

What is this statement based on? Which predictions? Made by whom?

This is what I responded to, where you implied that scientists were doing this to maintain their funding:

You obviously have never been in a position where you had to budget for an entity. It isn't a conspiracy, its a known practice.

Try to keep up with your own comments.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Yes, you said that. And I asked you for clarification, which you never provided. See below.



This is what I responded to, where you implied that scientists were doing this to maintain their funding:


Try to keep up with your own comments.

Conspiracy isn't synonymous with fraud bro. Do keep up.

I also said it wasn't conspiracy. Its a known practice. Whats my evidence? Do climatologists exist? You're welcome.

Climatologists have to justify their budgets in whatever organization they work for. Thats why we have had countless apocalyptic predictions by climatologists over the decades.

Water and food rationing by 1974
Global famine by 1975.
Pollution will kill everyone by 1989
Ice age by 2000
Rising seas destroy nations by 2000
No more snow by 2000.
The acid rain hoax of the 80's which the government eventually said "yeah, thats not really a big deal anymore". (Made for some great movies like Nukem High!)

Whats fun when reading about climate predictions is that the early "science" was screaming about a new ice age for decades. When that didn't happen it became global warming. When global warming and the ozone hole didn't destroy the world they just started saying climate change. Its a good catchall that enables predictions across the spectrum of doom. Alchemy was once cutting edge science...

 

[hUTch2002]

Anyone familiar with induction and the scientific method would disagree with this. Absolute certainty is not something germane to the scientific process.
By the way, are you saying you've read all of the relevant scientific literature and it all says this, or are you saying they "probably" all say this? Haha.



What is this statement based on? Which predictions? Made by whom?

The same people who took those signs down from Glacier National Park that claimed the glaciers would melt by 2020.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Conspiracy isn't synonymous with fraud bro. Do keep up.

I also said it wasn't conspiracy. Its a known practice. Whats my evidence? Do climatologists exist? You're welcome.

Then I'm not sure what your point is. If we're paying them to do their job and they're doing it then there's no problem. If they're intentionally falsifying their research to make it seem as if climate change is worse than it actually is in order to retain funding then that's fraud.

Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

If the entire global scientific community is in on it then it's a conspiracy. If you have no proof that either of these things are happening then you may as well not bring it up again. If you think they're all just mistaken then prove it.

Climatologists have to justify their budgets in whatever organization they work for. Thats why we have had countless apocalyptic predictions by climatologists over the decades.

Water and food rationing by 1974
Global famine by 1975.
Pollution will kill everyone by 1989
Ice age by 2000
Rising seas destroy nations by 2000
No more snow by 2000.
The acid rain hoax of the 80's which the government eventually said "yeah, thats not really a big deal anymore". (Made for some great movies like Nukem High!)

Whats fun when reading about climate predictions is that the early "science" was screaming about a new ice age for decades. When that didn't happen it became global warming. When global warming and the ozone hole didn't destroy the world they just started saying climate change. Its a good catchall that enables predictions across the spectrum of doom. Alchemy was once cutting edge science...

I responded to someone else about this. Show me that there was a doomsday consensus among scientists about these please. The oft-cited global cooling predictions from the '70s were supported by 7 research papers. Wow.

You need to discriminate between what the scientific literature says and what everything else says. Some politician spouting BS about the world ending is not the same thing as climate scientist predicting it in peer-reviewed material. None of these issues has the support from the experts that climate change does.

 

[Roustabout]

Then I'm not sure what your point is. If we're paying them to do their job and they're doing it then there's no problem. If they're intentionally falsifying their research to make it seem as if climate change is worse than it actually is in order to retain funding then that's fraud.

Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

If the entire global scientific community is in on it then it's a conspiracy. If you have no proof that either of these things are happening then you may as well not bring it up again. If you think they're all just mistaken then prove it.



I responded to someone else about this. Show me that there was a doomsday consensus among scientists about these please. The oft-cited global cooling predictions from the '70s were supported by 7 research papers. Wow.

You need to discriminate between what the scientific literature says and what everything else says. Some politician spouting BS about the world ending is not the same thing as climate scientist predicting it in peer-reviewed material. None of these issues has the support from the experts that climate change does.

Not fraud as much as confirmation bias. If the goal of your profession is to affirm man made climate change then.......

I’ll add a personal anecdote. My sister is a PhD, peer reviewed scientist. I can’t give much detail but she headed up a major, federally funded project. The results were not leading to the conclusions that the admin was hoping to see. Her research was misrepresented and she stood up against the machine. She’s now on a different project.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Not fraud as much as confirmation bias. If the goal of your profession is to affirm man made climate change then.......

Who says that's the goal of their profession? That sounds like someone else's bias.

And let's not pretend that companies like ExxonMobil haven't been funding their own research and public influence campaigns for years.

I’ll add a personal anecdote. My sister is a PhD, peer reviewed scientist. I can’t give much detail but she headed up a major, federally funded project. The results were not leading to the conclusions that the admin was hoping to see. Her research was misrepresented and she stood up against the machine. She’s now on a different project.

That's nice, but without all of the details and context it isn't particularly relevant.

I recently found an error in a calculation which resulted in the suspension of a federally-funded research project and my leadership and our government overlords all supported me and thanked me for bringing the error to their attention. Cool beans.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Then I'm not sure what your point is. If we're paying them to do their job and they're doing it then there's no problem. If they're intentionally falsifying their research to make it seem as if climate change is worse than it actually is in order to retain funding then that's fraud.

Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

If the entire global scientific community is in on it then it's a conspiracy. If you have no proof that either of these things are happening then you may as well not bring it up again. If you think they're all just mistaken then prove it.



I responded to someone else about this. Show me that there was a doomsday consensus among scientists about these please. The oft-cited global cooling predictions from the '70s were supported by 7 research papers. Wow.

You need to discriminate between what the scientific literature says and what everything else says. Some politician spouting BS about the world ending is not the same thing as climate scientist predicting it in peer-reviewed material. None of these issues has the support from the experts that climate change does.

No one said they are falsifying their research except you. This continuous Freudian slips seem a bit suspicious. Do they engage in wild conjecture? Of course they do, thats how they justify their existence and it hasn't changed in decades. You dont seem to understand how finance works in a corporate or government setting. Is it fraud? Its a matter of semantics at this point.

No reason to really try and prove climatologists wrong. The 12 year stretch of ZERO hurricanes in Florida after a few major ones in 2005 is really all one needs to look at and it was a disaster to climate science. It was funny during those 12 years how every hurricane season was "going to be the big one" where Florida was going to be decimated. Silly "Scientists".

50 years from now climate scientists of today will be looked upon with the same respect you get with snake oil salesman and late night televangelists who peddle powdered miracle water. And I'll be around to remind ya about it.

 

[Wafflestomper]

No one said they are falsifying their research except you. This continuous Freudian slips seem a bit suspicious. Do they engage in wild conjecture? Of course they do, thats how they justify their existence and it hasn't changed in decades. You dont seem to understand how finance works in a corporate or government setting. Is it fraud? Its a matter of semantics at this point.

There's definitely wild conjecture going on, but it's not with the science.

No reason to really try and prove climatologists wrong. The 12 year stretch of ZERO hurricanes in Florida after a few major ones in 2005 is really all one needs to look at and it was a disaster to climate science. It was funny during those 12 years how every hurricane season was "going to be the big one" where Florida was going to be decimated. Silly "Scientists".

Again, where is the scientific consensus for this? Any peer-reviewed papers that said Florida would be decimated during this stretch? Or are you yet again equivocating between scientific literature and media reports? We've been over this already.

 

[VolStrom]

There's definitely wild conjecture going on, but it's not with the science.



Again, where is the scientific consensus for this? Any peer-reviewed papers that said Florida would be decimated during this stretch? Or are you yet again equivocating between scientific literature and media reports? We've been over this already.

So what he is saying 79 is you are wrong and he is right and you have to prove it.

 

[Wafflestomper]

So what he is saying 79 is you are wrong and he is right and you have to prove it.

I provided easily accessible information to critique. If you want to maintain that it's all fake then you have a burden of proof too. So far all I've gotten is a bunch of nonsense with no technical rebuttals at all.

 

[hUTch2002]

Then I'm not sure what your point is. If we're paying them to do their job and they're doing it then there's no problem. If they're intentionally falsifying their research to make it seem as if climate change is worse than it actually is in order to retain funding then that's fraud.

Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

If the entire global scientific community is in on it then it's a conspiracy. If you have no proof that either of these things are happening then you may as well not bring it up again. If you think they're all just mistaken then prove it.



I responded to someone else about this. Show me that there was a doomsday consensus among scientists about these please. The oft-cited global cooling predictions from the '70s were supported by 7 research papers. Wow.

You need to discriminate between what the scientific literature says and what everything else says. Some politician spouting BS about the world ending is not the same thing as climate scientist predicting it in peer-reviewed material. None of these issues has the support from the experts that climate change does.

So you’re saying AOC is wrong then?

 

[AM64]

So you’re saying AOC is wrong then?

Wow, that ranks right up there with making fun of Special Olympians. How dare you.

 

[Wafflestomper]

The relevance is that sometimes scientists are wrong, even when there’s a consensus.

I call this the "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia defense;" Mack uses this reasoning in his argument against evolution. But the argument is only useful to demonstrate the trivial fact that a consensus doesn't guarantee that a particular claim is true. If you're using it to try to show that a particular claim is false then it raises some pretty unsavory questions, such as "should we consider everything for which there is a scientific consensus to be false?"

In the case of homosexuality though, it's former status as a mental disorder has more philosophical underpinnings than scientific ones (i.e., what exactly constitutes a mental disorder?). This is not really an issue in the climate change debate.

 

[LouderVol]

Not a lot but still going

Good. That may be my tax refund charity this year.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Good. That may be my tax refund charity this year.

You gotta respect someone actually trying to solve the problem

 

[LouderVol]

I’d rather be a science denier and then have them prove me wrong , then to be a sheeple bleating about how right they are because they are “ scientists “ . Scientific theories must be proven out before they become facts . History and wisdom tells us that we should question them at every turn until they prove the subject matter as fact .

The various white lab coat tests also come to mind.

 

[0nelilreb]

I call this the "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia defense;" Mack uses this reasoning in his argument against evolution. But the argument is only useful to demonstrate the trivial fact that a consensus doesn't guarantee that a particular claim is true. If you're using it to try to show that a particular claim is false then it raises some pretty unsavory questions, such as "should we consider everything for which there is a scientific consensus to be false?"

In the case of homosexuality though, it's former status as a mental disorder has more philosophical underpinnings than scientific ones (i.e., what exactly constitutes a mental disorder?). This is not really an issue in the climate change debate.

I would argue that with the climate change debate it’s more of a sociological/ psychological influence . People are grouping together to believe things that just aren’t true or have not been proven out yet ( educated guess seem to be the hot ticket right now ) simply to feel better that they are part of something potentially good for the planet on a macro level . Many of those same people still buy bottled water in plastic containers, soft drinks from convenient stores , still don’t recycle or if they do make a half assed attempt at it because the city gave them a blue trash can . Things like carbon taxes , promised funding into an accord or paying dues to belong to a consolidation of countries ran by bureaucrats doesn’t help the cause at all .

 

[0nelilreb]

The various white lab coat tests also come to mind.

#Eugenics .. which was still believed and practiced up until the 20th century , comes to mind .