More Climate BS...

[McDad]

Again I agree, a measurement of consensus is not for the scientists that are being surveyed. And are you suggesting the IPCC is just a party where there’s a “Is climate change real” yes/no vote?

I mean I personally don’t care if y’all individually want to believe in a flat earth. But it becomes a problem when half of congress either believes in flat earth or goes along with the wild conspiracy theories because it’s politically convenient.

In the 20th century the scientific community had less agreement about climate change. What’s telling is how a consensus grows over time. And how the consensus grows even stronger when you look at the subsets of scientists that have more relevant expertise or are more frequently published in the field.

The climate contrarians that the denialist blogosphere like to trot out generally fall into one or more categories of non-experts, professor emeritus of adjacent fields who hasn’t published in decades, or are literally funded by far right wing and fossil fuel interests. Many are conveniently also “experts” on tobacco carcinogenicity, acid rain, etc. etc. (and guess what, it turns out every environmental, health and safety issue is non-issue! How convenient!). I know, I know, don’t attack the source; but it’s absolutely worth pointing out. I’m happy to go through the actual science when it’s a good faith discussion with a reasonable person and not just a gish gallop of tired denialist memes.

Maybe we can agree, then, consensus affirmed to the masses is really an effort to bandwagon. If the target of that affirmation is politicians, good luck. Those rascals only care about reelections and power.

Would you say Scientific publications on CC are generally discussing observable data or using the scientific method to test a hypothesis?

 

[Orangeburst]

Scowling Obama inspects his new multi-million dollar Hawaii mansion and controversial sea wall | Daily Mail Online

stuff like this and other full displays of hypocrisy is why I think the biggest scam in our history

 

[C-south]

I personally don’t think people disbelieve climate change . Every single thing changes , nothing stays the same . It’s the absoluteness of the climate hoax is what people have a hard time with . Climate change has went from let’s do what we can to midigate the damage we cause to taxes , company’s buying more carbon permits , and complete lunacy across the spectrum from one country taxing everyone who breathes to other countries saying we will see how it goes in 25-30 years then we might cut back some ( maybe ) . Then you have the carnival barkers trying to convince people that wind mill blades and EV batteries , the materials used to make them is better for the environment than combustion engines while flying around the world in private jets raising awareness and more funding . Besides war , it will end up being the most profitable scheme the planet has ever known before it’s over .

Killing the economy and pushing us to the brink of a 3rd world country is the only solution. All we have to do is exchange one carbon footprint for another and voila. We all know every Asian European country will do their part.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Again I don’t care what you believe personally. I work in construction too. We’re a geotechnical engineering firm. We have engineers and geologists across the political spectrum. Climate change really hardly comes up; maybe occasionally in passing over Friday beers or when it has relevance to a project. Nobody here is squawking but I’m absolutely positive 100% of our company understands climate change is a real problem caused by human fossil fuel emissions. I’d wager the same is true for every earth scientist I’ve ever met in academia or the private sector. The construction guys we work with, that’s a different story

Even in academia there's little squawking. There are a small handful that interact with the public but most scientists just work their niche fields and are interested in the nitty gritty of those specific fields. Of course it's difficult to ignore the climate crisis for any scientists let alone those working in the most relevant fields. But really, most everyone is just doing their jobs, doing research, living their lives.


Global temperatures peaked most recently about 10,000 years ago and the climate has been relatively stable since then, allowing for the development of human civilization. But the average temperature of the past decade exceeds that of at least the past 100,000 years. The rate of greenhouse gas emissions is comparable to previous mass extinction events millions of years ago. We are way off the natural cycle and it is alarming.


Hey, can confirm, I bleed orange and am literally the easiest person to get along with off the internet. We probably have more in common than you think. I don’t post in politics much or in general and I get that the only time many of you see me it’s when I’m going on and on about climate change… but someone in this place has to be a voice of reason

I guess I don’t really care how I’m viewed on an anonymous message board but I’m just saying I understand we’re all individuals doing our best to live our lives right and the impressions we get from limited interactions with strangers over the internet are always off.



I would give this ten likes if I could. I wish we could go back in time to where people at least experienced the same reality. It's a bigger problem than any one political issue. With the internet and AI it seems we're only getting stupider. How can we make compromise and solve problems when we can't establish the basic facts?

Do you have a single concrete example? What research papers have you reviewed? I’m guessing this is all based on the nonsense third(+)-hand opinion pieces you’re force-fed on Facebook etc. And I don’t blame you. I blame the media and everything that has led to the dystopian situation you just described in the previous paragraph.

This is a good post Bart and i am glad we neither have any hard feelings etc. If we ever get together for a game, i will gladly buy you a beer or make you a burger...we are all VOLS here after all. I was watching UT games in a recliner with my Pappaw every Saturday at 3 and 4 years old. Decades before i knew i was a conservative, a craftsman, or even a man...i knew for damn sure I was a VOL. Like many, I never attended UT other than as a fan. Yet my blood runneth Orange...and UT football has always been my passion. All of us here have a strong common bond..whether we act like it or not. Except LG and Jawja Joe anyway.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

it's a certainty or consensus funnel if you will - human activity as a cause of global warming? that's at the narrow end of the funnel at the highest level of certainty or put another way the lowest variability in scientific support. as you move out from there to implications of that (and even severity predictions) you move more and more into less certainty/higher variability/wider range of possible outcomes.

my biggest beef is how the climate zealots or those using it as guise for policy conflate the certainty at the narrow end with the outcomes at the other. any number of phenomena are linked to climate change with unwavering certainty that doesn't actually exist in the scientific community.

I read a lengthy article the other day regarding falsified data in peer reviewed papers...the "publish or perish" phenomena etc. The article was extensive and talked about how even on the double blind placebo trials for FDA approvals, much less the regular hard or soft sciences, how much cherrypicking, data falsification, changing hypothesis to match collected data....you name it...goes on these days at the University level for a variety of reasons. They said it was ubiquitous...and sited many examples and reasons for the lies. Then i read numerous personal accounts in the comments sections from scientists talking about how very discouraged they became when working for their masters or Phd when their mentors (bosses/masters lol) made them leave out or change data or their means of gathering data in order for their studies to come up with a data set that supported the conclusion desired by either the grant giver or their professor/sponsor? It was insane
Several of them finished their degrees but decided to go to work in another discipline or even unrelated field....because what they were doing abandoned the scientific method, honesty, and truth. When those things were gone, they had no interest in moving forward. Who wants to pay hundreds of thousands of $ for an education in a STEM field....only to lie and practice pseudoscience? Not the real science which they fell in love with as a kid (like I did). The article was very eye opening...I wish i could remember which website it was from. I will try to find it if I am able.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Killing the economy and pushing us to the brink of a 3rd world country is the only solution. All we have to do is exchange one carbon footprint for another and voila. We all know every Asian European country will do their part.

You said a mouthfull here. Yes.

China alone produces more pollution than the US and all of western Europe COMBINED.

Yearly. Every year based on what I read...and thats just what we know about. They have zero plans to do better and appear unwilling to ever do anything that might slow or hurt their economy. You can watch videos of garbage trucks backing up to a cliff and dumping directly into the ocean for Petes sake...much less them producing so much smog that all their cities are in brown perma clouds. Remember before the Olympics when the news showed how they shut down factories temporarily around cities hosting events and then still tried to accompany all TV cameras with Chicom handlers who made sure their smog and pollution wasnt shown on camera?

The Chicoms have no intentions of bankrupting themselves in the name of globalism or environmentalism. They do not try and hide this either....and India is the exact same just 10 to 20% less at the moment...but as Indias population is now growing larger than Chinas...like 1.4 Billion and rising...they will soon likely overtake China in pollution as well. If these 2 do not GREATLY reduce their pollution then anything the rest of the world does is meaningless anyway. So lets bankrupt the West for no reason...yeah right.

 

[Orangeburst]

You said a mouthfull here. Yes.

China alone produces more pollution than the US and all of western Europe COMBINED.

Yearly. Every year based on what I read...and thats just what we know about. They have zero plans to do better and appear unwilling to ever do anything that might slow or hurt their economy. You can watch videos of garbage trucks backing up to a cliff and dumping directly into the ocean for Petes sake...much less them producing so much smog that all their cities are in brown perma clouds. Remember before the Olympics when the news showed how they shut down factories temporarily around cities hosting events and then still tried to accompany all TV cameras with Chicom handlers who made sure their smog and pollution wasnt shown on camera?

The Chicoms have no intentions of bankrupting themselves in the name of globalism or environmentalism. They do not try and hide this either....and India is the exact same just 10 to 20% less at the moment...but as Indias population is now growing larger than Chinas...like 1.4 Billion and rising...they will soon likely overtake China in pollution as well. If these 2 do not GREATLY reduce their pollution then anything the rest of the world does is meaningless anyway. So lets bankrupt the West for no reason...yeah right.

something is terribly wrong

 

[82_VOL_83]

0.4 % . Our atmosphere is at 0.4% CO2 ...the deception involved with this global grift is unprecedented. The globalists put into practice Hitlers comments " repeat a lie loud enough, for long enough, and people will believe it is truth."

Those of us with our wits about us can look at the actual science and facts to draw a very different conclusion. Starting with the oft repeated lie that " 97% of scientists believe in climate change." Classic half truth style deception. Surely 97% of scientists DO believe Earths climate changes ...it is demonstrably cyclical. From one ice age to the next with hotter periods and higher sea levels in between. The real question is actually " What % of scientists believe in man made global warming?" Better still, " What % of scientists not on the dole for climate science believe that man made global warming is an existential threat? " There is serious conflict of interest when asking scientists if the "boogey man" they are studying/attempting to justify is real considering they are reliant on huge grants from the government to "study" these alleged impacts to the Earth. If there is no manmade global warming then they will not get paid to study/teach/indoctrinate.

.04%

 

[82_VOL_83]

Lmao, Godwin's Law never fails. If your beer contains 0.4% arsenic that shouldn't be a problem, right?

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

The idea that the entire scientific community has conspired over a century to invent a fake environmental crisis for research grants is beyond moronic. Just the idea that thousands of researchers would base their careers on a lie instead of, you know, just study something else? Anyone whose research overturns the consensus on climate change would win a nobel prize which comes with over a million bucks and eternal fame and glory. And if you're in it for the money, why go into academia instead of, say, the oil and gas industry? Even O&G has known for decades that human CO2 emissions are driving climate change!

Just like your BS climate "science" you are about 10 x wrong in your CO2 concentration. But hey .4% is infinitely worse than .04%

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[StarRaider]

Filmmaker discovered high-decibel sonar levels while shooting “Thrown To The Wind,” about why the wind industry could make the North Atlantic Right Whales extinct

Why This Documentary May Save The Whales

xiden's corrupt admin knew about this

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Filmmaker discovered high-decibel sonar levels while shooting “Thrown To The Wind,” about why the wind industry could make the North Atlantic Right Whales extinct

Why This Documentary May Save The Whales

xiden's corrupt admin knew about this

 

[jwilliams]

Ask the environmental crowd how long wind turbines last.

Then ask them about recycling turbine blades...

Wait for the NPC confused look.

Don't forget solar panels. They're filled with heavy metals and guess where we dispose of most of them... Africa.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[Orangeburst]

Texans Asked to Cut Electricity Use, As Wind Power Drops Off • Watts Up With That?

good luck

 

[Orangeburst]

Meet the Green Energy Group Behind the Study That's Driving Calls To Ban Gas Stoves

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Why hasn't this do nothing clown been fired yet? He's as worthless as Biden & Harris.

 

[Fun coupon VOL]

scientist getting paid by? You guessed it, John Kerry’s friends who are pushing an agenda.

Welcome to America, no one can think for themselves.

 

[Orangeburst]

scary stuff

Climate Lawfare • Watts Up With That?

 

[hog88]

Texans Asked to Cut Electricity Use, As Wind Power Drops Off • Watts Up With That?

good luck

California east is what that crude hole should be named.

 

[AM64]

Yessir. I understand consensus is general agreement. I am trying to understand why consensus is even mentioned. Al Gore did it when he promoted his movie.
When a scientific fact is provable and predictable does it need consensus? You mentioned the flat earthers....does anyone care whether there is consensus the earth is a sphere? Of course not. Consensus is ridiculous for the shape of the earth. Imagine all the astronomers gathering at a professional conference agreeing to affirm their agreement the earth is spherical. OTOH, no amount of consensus in flat earth circles changes the facts. It doesn't matter how many people agree to those who know the observable truth.
If consensus isn't for the scientific community, that means it is for us. What does it matter whether we agree with something scientific? So it seems to me, that consensus is a sales technique (band wagon) and PR. Of course, there are other scientists and experts who disagree with the consensus. So perhaps consensus is about agreeing with a particular side when the science isn't actually settled.

In this case it seems like the climate change crowd cooked the books. They have their church of climate change - and then there is everybody else. Obviously the members of the church of climate change are the "experts", and scientists, engineers; and others who criticize the methods, the data, the conclusions, and the hypocrisy are cast as outsiders who don't have pertinent knowledge. The only acceptable commentary leading to "scientific validation" comes from their church of climate change brethren, so obviously any finding by one of the church will be found correct by the other members of the church.

Man has only been around for a bit of the Earth's history, and even a more brief period with instruments for accurate measurements. All the rest - analysis of ice cores etc is a SWAG ... scientific wild azz guess.

 

[AM64]

Judith Curry used to proliferate the climate hoax until she looked at the actual facts and realized this garbage is based on an anti-capitalist agenda. She does a great job of explaining why people sell their souls for a false narrative. Hopefully more will come out and expose the whole climate change industry as fraud. This is a great read.

This scientist used to spread climate change alarmism. Now she's trying to debunk it.

The sad truth is that there is a lot of money to be made in the world of climate change alarmism. If governments weren't pumping money into the "science", "renewable" energy, and the promise of other energy sources as they kill off what works, climate change hysteria would be nothing. The real shame is that the hysteria is driving bad decisions and moving civilization away from more reasoned developments.

 

[Sgt_Nick_Fury]

 

[Grand Vol]

You know someone in the EPA is probably writing this proposal up and sending it to the idiot in chief to sign.

 

[hog88]

You know someone in the EPA is probably writing this proposal up and sending it to the idiot in chief to sign.

I could see that being implemented in certain states/cities here.