What's new
By:

Hundreds of Scientists Say Climate Change Is Not Science, CO2 Is Benign

fishonjazz said:
lol I literally posted a link to an article by the washington times a while back and Dutch quoted it and called it fake news.
Hilarious
Click to expand...


yeha because fake news is all around, but a broken clock is twice right a day. first i found it on a right wing website, then forgot to post link. so i googled it again, and found a few sources, and went for the left wing link. the one most trusted by lefties like urself!

but there are litterally dozens of links from different outlets.


distrust and verify when it comes to Washington times
 
♪alt13 said:
It will be dramatic. Whole nations will disappear, there is a mass extinction underway, great cities will be lost, the fortune's of nations will shift, biomes will be lost.

Seriously the extinction of the human race or the end of civilization is not where I set the bar for drama. There are plenty of things that fall short of that mark that are not only dramatic but tragic.
Click to expand...

good, the herd needs to be thinned .
survival of the fittest is Darwinian science right. so are u an evolution denier :)
 
♪alt13 said:
Those Innovations weren't driven by a period of American crisis, they were driven by a period of American Conquest. The social changes in Germany and Japan were imposed on them. It wasn't a revolutionary up swelling caused by an internal crisis, it was two Nations we built in the image we had for them. The Manhattan Project and Apollo missions happened here instead of Europe because of our lack of a real crisis. Wealth and power, opportunity and growth drove American innovation.

The people that stand to benefit the most from climate change will have the least incentive to act. They will actually have the incentive not to act. Someone else will be paying cost.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this, and while it has a lot of value, I don't think it offers a full explanation. For example, Germany's social changes go both ways, not just what was imposed on them after WWII. Their crisis following WWI led to the rise of the Nazis, which is a major social change in response to a crisis. Additionally, WWII did not only change German and Japanese societies, but also the rest of Europe. War was the norm between European countries, but now it has become practically unthinkable. I think ideology, circumstances (crises, stability, etc), and capital all contribute to innovation. For example, Saudi Arabia does not innovate much, despite having significant capital.

Why wouldn't those who benefit from climate change not act to take advantage of said benefit? I think they would. The Netherlands lie mostly below sea-levels, so they constructed a massive series of levies to stay afloat. Why wouldn't other developed countries do the same in response to the same threat?
 
Siro said:
I've been thinking about this, and while it has a lot of value, I don't think it offers a full explanation. For example, Germany's social changes go both ways, not just what was imposed on them after WWII. Their crisis following WWI led to the rise of the Nazis, which is a major social change in response to a crisis. Additionally, WWII did not only change German and Japanese societies, but also the rest of Europe. War was the norm between European countries, but now it has become practically unthinkable. I think ideology, circumstances (crises, stability, etc), and capital all contribute to innovation. For example, Saudi Arabia does not innovate much, despite having significant capital.

Why wouldn't those who benefit from climate change not act to take advantage of said benefit? I think they would. The Netherlands lie mostly below sea-levels, so they constructed a massive series of levies to stay afloat. Why wouldn't other developed countries do the same in response to the same threat?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's a full explanation either but I do think it's key.

Let's start with Saudi Arabia. It is not a wealthy Society. It is an oppressive and impoverished one. Yes it is true that there's an oligarchical regime that has a lot of capital but they are severely limited in how much they can innovate by how little that wealth permeates their society. Especially considering the vast amount of capital they must spend maintaining the regime.

The Dutch are a different story. These are the people that invented the transnational Corporation, they are Iirc the oldest Republic in europe. While other Europeans were still living under oppressive regimes the Dutch were busy making themselves wealthy through global commerce. As for their dykes these weren't maintenance expenditures. Every acre of the sea that they conquered yielded extremely valuable soils. Soils that were so productive that that tiny nation is still to this day an agricultural exporter. Had they been uncovering bedrock they would have reached their limit long ago.

It is true that following World War 1 and the Great Depression Europe went through drastic social changes. Those changes led to the near-total destruction of Europe. America deserves most if not all of the credit for the sustained peace in Europe after the second World War. America didn't only disarm and occupy Germany, it put in motion a plan to disarm and occupy the entire western half of the continent. America put on trial and then publicly executed Germany's leaders not for the Holocaust but for starting a war of aggression. America demanded the end of the British Empire, it created Nato and the UN and took supreme control over European security. As payment America took preeminent control over the global supply of money elevating the dollar to the most important piece of paper on the planet.

If developed Nations are fortunate like the Dutch were, their Capital expenditures because of climate change will be synergistic with Investments that can increase their wealth. If not expenditure of those resources will actually make the societies less wealthy and increasingly less able to innovate.
 
Siro said:
I know. But what can be done? I think two things will help: one, developed countries should be more open to welcoming the millions of climate change refuges. This isn't looking good with the rise of anti-immigrants sentiments in the developed world, but who knows about public sentiments in 20 or 50 years? Second, developing countries should continue onward toward industrial development, as that would allow people to more effectively deal with climate disruption.

It isn't about comfortable perches. The world is as it is. I try to think about the future and the values we should adopt to maximize human well-being, and I see climate change as an opportunity for increased cooperation and capabilities. There is no avoiding major disruption at this point, and I was simply thinking of ways to take advantage of the coming changes.
Click to expand...

Interestingly some people who think about things in this country believe the current madness exhibited by Australian government about refugees and boat arrivals has something in part to do with the potential for climate change to displace millions of people in our region. The thinking goes that by making ourselves an unwelcoming destination refugees will choose Europe or North America as asylum destinations. It also has a lot to do with entrenched cultural racism.

And yeah climate change isn't happening, its the end of summer and we're at the beginning of a two week heat wave. ode to ****ing joy!
 
Siro said:
I've been thinking about this, and while it has a lot of value, I don't think it offers a full explanation. For example, Germany's social changes go both ways, not just what was imposed on them after WWII. Their crisis following WWI led to the rise of the Nazis, which is a major social change in response to a crisis. Additionally, WWII did not only change German and Japanese societies, but also the rest of Europe. War was the norm between European countries, but now it has become practically unthinkable. I think ideology, circumstances (crises, stability, etc), and capital all contribute to innovation. For example, Saudi Arabia does not innovate much, despite having significant capital.

Why wouldn't those who benefit from climate change not act to take advantage of said benefit? I think they would. The Netherlands lie mostly below sea-levels, so they constructed a massive series of levies to stay afloat. Why wouldn't other developed countries do the same in response to the same threat?
Click to expand...

because culture has everything to do with it.

for example israel is greening the desert, which gives us more forest to decrease co2. if you think co2 causes catastrophic climate change that's a good thing right.

some cultures just aren't trying to progress, or have different priorities.

saudi arabia likes to spend money on buying Ferrari, Porsche Bugatti as cop cars. Israel just gets regular cop cars.


trust me having lived and worked in Netherlands and various 3rd world countries, you notice this mentality in the production branch.
its like certain cultures have an aversion to production. and without production there is no progresion.
some of the countries i lived in.

there is another aprouch to this problem. they call it the "recourse curse"
The resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty, refers to the paradox that countries with an abundance of natural resources, specifically non-renewable resources like minerals and fuels, tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. This is hypothesized to happen for many different reasons, and there are many academic debates about when and why it occurs. Most experts believe the resource curse is not universal or inevitable, but affects certain types of countries or regions under certain conditions.
Click to expand...

netherlands has no real natural recourse, Israel also has no real natural resources.
but for example saudi arabi and Venezuela and other 3rd world countries i have been in do have an abundance of those recourses..
of course the us of a does have some natural resources. but as far as i know not expensive minerals, so usa breaks this trend in a way(i know you got coal and oil).

is this post relevant i dont know. but you compared netherland and saudi arabia, so gave my honest input
 
Bill Nye The Lying Guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8b0JIPGyOA

bill is not a science guy. any "scientist" who calls skeptics a war criminal is not a scientist but a ignoramus.
because science is based on skepticism and questioning things

once again models and simulations are not SETTLED SCIENCE. they more complex the subject the greater the flaws and mistakes in the models and simulation. anybody who thinks otherwise, has no clue what a simulation or model is. it is not settled science.

he calls people who deny his "evidence" deniers. but he faisl to realizes simulation and models are not EVIDENCE!
i learned that the first year in college
 
DutchJazzer said:
because culture has everything to do with it.

for example israel is greening the desert, which gives us more forest to decrease co2. if you think co2 causes catastrophic climate change that's a good thing right.

some cultures just aren't trying to progress, or have different priorities.

saudi arabia likes to spend money on buying Ferrari, Porsche Bugatti as cop cars. Israel just gets regular cop cars.


trust me having lived and worked in Netherlands and various 3rd world countries, you notice this mentality in the production branch.
its like certain cultures have an aversion to production. and without production there is no progresion.
some of the countries i lived in.

there is another aprouch to this problem. they call it the "recourse curse"


netherlands has no real natural recourse, Israel also has no real natural resources.
but for example saudi arabi and Venezuela and other 3rd world countries i have been in do have an abundance of those recourses..
of course the us of a does have some natural resources. but as far as i know not expensive minerals, so usa breaks this trend in a way(i know you got coal and oil).

is this post relevant i dont know. but you compared netherland and saudi arabia, so gave my honest input
Click to expand...

The Resource Curse is fake news.
 
Before we 'lefties' go stick our heads in the sand, perhaps someone, who cares enough to put in the effort, could determine how many of the scientists signing this petition are actual climate scientists published in credible scientific journals?

All scientists are not created equal.

I'm guessing that a good share of 'scientist' signing this petition are one or more of the following:

a. Not actual climate scientists but from 'scientists' in other disciplines unrelated, or tengentially related, to climate science.
b. Have not conducted research on climate science.
c. Have not published articles on climate science in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
d. Have not published any articles on natural science in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
e. Are not affliated with respectable research universities.
f. Have economic or other ties to resource extraction and usage industries; some may even be lobbiest for such industries.
g. Are affilitated with right-wing think tanks or policy advocacy organizations.
h. Are not really scientists at all in terms of credentials or work experience.

I could be wrong, of course.

One must consider that with little difficulty, one might also find supposedly 'respectable' persons, even some with scientific credentials, advocating for such things as:

a. 911 trutherism
b. Big foot
c. Extra terrestrials
d. Holocaust denial
e. List random crank theory here
 
Last edited:
jimmy eat jazz said:
Before we 'lefties' go stick our heads in the sand, perhaps someone, who cares enough to put in the effort, could determine how many of the scientists signing this petition are actual climate scientists published in credible scientific journals?

All scientists are not created equal.

I'm guessing that a good share of 'scientist' signing this petition are one or more of the following:

a. Not actual climate scientists but from 'scientists' in other disciplines unrelated, or tengentially related, to climate science.
b. Have not conducted research on climate science.
c. Have not published articles on climate science in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
d. Have not published any articles on natural science in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
e. Are not affliated with respectable research universities.
f. Have economic or other ties to resource extraction and usage industries; some may even be lobbiest for such industries.
g. Are affilitated with right-wing think tanks or policy advocacy organizations.
h. Are not really scientists at all in terms of credentials or work experience.

I could be wrong, of course.

One must consider that with little difficulty, one might also find supposedly 'respectable' persons, even some with scientific credentials, advocating for such things as:

a. 911 trutherism
b. Big foot
c. Extra terrestrials
d. Holocaust denial
e. List random crank theory here
Click to expand...

really? So do I need a college degree to suspect that you, in saying "I could be wrong", actually self-evaluates that risk at less than 0.0001%? (non-scientific speak meaning less than one in a million?)
common sense can do more for you than sitting in a government-programmed educational conundrum for twenty years, learning to say or find reasons to support the government agenda)


As for "Extra terrestrials", I believe it's mostly liberals who believe that is a problem, and argue therefrom that abortions and childbirth quotas, and euthanasia of "useless eaters" are helpful in solving the problem.
 
srs, jej, what do you have against Coast to Coast, the most popular nighttime radio show?

way too serious, bro.

George takes it all on, with credulous courtesy. People talk about greys, abductions into spaceships, hybrid babes.... ghosts, remote viewing, area 51, everything you've ever feared some poor human might believe if not properly subjected to your classroom propaganda, state-approved conditioning of the untrusted human mind.

sure, some folks just like the show for fun. But how dare they have that fun. Fun must be stopped. STOPPED. What would happen to the world if people were just allowed to think for themselves? The Horror!!!! Oh, the Humanity!!!!! or, as I suspect you would term it "Oh, the horrible Humanity!!!!!!"

nah, most people have common sense. Most people have more common sense than any "Established Science".
 
Settled Science

This is a little remedial exercise for our school teacher, jej.

OK, so I have some questions, and I actually read stuff, and look at pics.

jej, here is an article from the net, which contains some graphs. Take a few minutes, read it, look at the pics. There will be a quiz.

https://www.atmos.washington.edu/1998Q4/211/project2/moana.htm

please note, this article claims to give us the "settled science" of ice age temps and interglacial temps, representing in the graph, or claiming to represent, published results. OK, so what's wrong with these graphs?

Oh, be sure to read far enough to find the second graph, and compare the scales.
 
babe said:
really? So do I need a college degree to suspect that you, in saying "I could be wrong", actually self-evaluates that risk at less than 0.0001%? (non-scientific speak meaning less than one in a million?)
common sense can do more for you than sitting in a government-programmed educational conundrum for twenty years, learning to say or find reasons to support the government agenda)


As for "Extra terrestrials", I believe it's mostly liberals who believe that is a problem, and argue therefrom that abortions and childbirth quotas, and euthanasia of "useless eaters" are helpful in solving the problem.
Click to expand...

Your post makes absolutely no sense and fails to address in a coherent way anything I posed above.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Before we 'lefties' go stick our heads in the sand, perhaps someone, who cares enough to put in the effort, could determine how many of the scientists signing this petition are actual climate scientists published in credible scientific journals?

All scientists are not created equal.

I'm guessing that a good share of 'scientist' signing this petition are one or more of the following:

a. Not actual climate scientists but from 'scientists' in other disciplines unrelated, or tengentially related, to climate science.
b. Have not conducted research on climate science.
c. Have not published articles on climate science in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
d. Have not published any articles on natural science in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
e. Are not affliated with respectable research universities.
f. Have economic or other ties to resource extraction and usage industries; some may even be lobbiest for such industries.
g. Are affilitated with right-wing think tanks or policy advocacy organizations.
h. Are not really scientists at all in terms of credentials or work experience.

I could be wrong, of course.
Click to expand...

where you such a skeptic on the "97% of scientist agree hogwash! i hope you where!
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Your post makes absolutely no sense and fails to address in a coherent way anything I posed above.
Click to expand...

oh, should I use some terminology you're familiar with, because you don't have a dictionary?

or, do I need to explain grammar for a complex sentence?

maybe we need to review the decimal idea in mathematics in relation to the meaning of "%".

nah, you're just unwilling to acknowledge simple facts. Hiding in your political rhetoric and quoting your political sources, without understanding them, either, really.

Plain wrong-headed ignorance. 3

Got that?
 
Jej, I was looking for a response on the graphs I linked.

I'm old enough to remember when graphs like this were used to prove the coming imminent Ice Age.

I clearly understand the reason why "AGW" "CC" and carbon emissions are being made public issues. Anyone who looks at the climate cycles going back five or six cycles will be concerned about why there are fairly steep "cooling" episodes and why ice ages happen. Nobody knows. This was the first take our global governance leadership tried to make out as the great reason for global crisis management. But hey, the temps just kept warm, too long.

So, hey, why not try global warming to panic the world public into more global governance and mismanagement? Sure, no problem.

It's not science when the objective is political. It's as simple as that.

Sure, I see the data on %CO2 and temps. I question how much is ours, and what may be outgassing from the deep blue seas, which must be a few degrees warmer now than oh say 10K years ago. I suspect that mud catching sunshine in Arctic summers may have a bunch of gases to release. Lots of stuff not really studied very well, yet.

The graphs I tried to show you profess that previous interglacial warms have hit temps even warmer than we have now reached.

I believe the principal causes of ice ages include warmer oceans, warmer at depth and capable of sustaining a change of climate pattern competent to produce the atmospheric moisture needed to build the artic ice mass up again.

cyclical, bro. look up the term. It'll educate you. So far, you're just reacting to politically-charged "thinking". When our oceans cross that threshold, perhaps in sync with a sun cycle or something else of huge long-term relevance clearly out of our reach, we will still get our next Ice Age. Get ready for it. Nobody has any idea of when it's coming, or knows anything about what causes it.... but it's been happening and likely will happen again, even with our AGW spike, or maybe partially because of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top