Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Joe Miner]

5 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Both, unfortunately, since we can’t decouple our environment from the rest of the world. Implement public policy changes for ourselves, while using diplomacy and different forms of economic pressure policies for everyone else. China is still in the Paris Agreement and will want to be a cooperative international economic player moving forward beyond COVID-19 (hopefully…because it is in their own economic interests to be that way). CCP is also positioned very favorably for all these nascent renewable energy industries because of their country’s own rich transition metal oxide natural resources, as well as the ones they’ve been eyeing in Africa.

 

 

 

Thanks for this reply. A few comments:

 

1. Regarding a clearly defined problem and solution: You’ve listed 7 questions. Do you want me to answer them in detail here? Or were they more rhetorical? Questions 3, 5, and 7 are very well-defined by the science (quick source: NASA GISS site). Questions 1, 2, and 4 are defined well enough (quick source: Paris Climate Agreement PDF documents) with a converging consensus, but there is still a range of opinions that vary somewhat by country. Question 6 is still open-ended with the “Green New Deal” umbrella term for the potpourri of solutions, but the United States is one of the few remaining countries in the world with a major political party still stuck debating the worthiness of the other 6 questions first. I’d be happy to answer them in detail later if open-minded people want to read them, but it’s not worth my time if they will be laughed at because they’re coming from a “pseudo scientist” perceived as capable of reading and regurgitating but incapable of understanding and questioning. I’ve already defined the criteria I’m looking for in order to break off from the mainstream scientific consensus: dissenting research papers or research summary articles from properly credentialed climatologists that I could examine. What would be your evidence criteria in order to join my side (a question directed at any anthropogenic climate change skeptic reading this)?

 

2. On the models and data: I’ve never argued that all the data is known. Likewise with the modeling assumptions and unknown variables. What I did argue was that enough of the data and modeling assumptions are known to make satisfactorily accurate climate predictions. We can have a discussion on what constitutes “satisfactorily accurate.” Future predictions that track all data metrics within 2.5% deviation at 100% consistency? Have you defined your own computational model accuracy expectations at which scientific legitimacy can then be bestowed? It seems absurd and unproductive to me to demand climate model perfectionism before political action is to be taken. It would probably be more productive to take up an accuracy debate with credible climatologists (Zeke Hausfather would be a pretty good start).

 

3. On government solutions: I’m currently looking into what’s specifically working and what’s specifically not with all the various Green New Deal implementations in the EU, especially in Germany right now. All ideas should be on the table, anyway, given the pressing need to overhaul our dilapidated national civil infrastructure. I just want to reiterate that I would be unhappy pushing Green New Deal legislation without careful deliberation beforehand and without appropriate safeguards. I like to think that we share similarly deep concerns for government overreaches of power, government choosing economic winners and losers, and government waste and inefficiencies that increase with government program size. Where I may possibly differ from others here is my essentially equal concern for corporate power left unchecked in capitalist systems (the fossil fuel industries in this case). I’m mostly referring to the many forms of crony capitalism: shirking environmental stewardship responsibilities via deregulatory pollution law measures, price manipulation policies, foreign policy in places like the Middle East and Venezuela, and exploiting such an overly expansive U.S. transportation grid already built to heavily favor fossil fuel consumption. But even in a completely uncorrupted and unfettered capitalist system, I fully and very cynically expect private tech industries to move on their own volition without proper regard to long-term crises involving mutually shared risk (i.e. man-made climate change).

 

Last comment and I'm out.

 

Your full faith is in the science of others. You are a true believer. Any attempt to make you question the science you defend will be met with more quotes of scripture and verse from said science.

 

The idea that you even remotely support the green new deal shines as a bright beacon of your faith.

 

Peace be with you.

[KD in CA]

5 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

China is still in the Paris Agreement and will want to be a cooperative international economic player moving forward

 

Not only that, but Iran completely gave up their desire to have nukes!   

[B-Man]

 

 

“EARTH DAY” TURNS 50. Half a century later, a look back at the forecasters who got the future wrong—and one who got it right.

 

Flashback: “Earth Day” Founder And Notorious “Unicorn Killer” Ira Einhorn Has Died In Prison At Age 79.

 

On the eve of 2011’s “Earth Day,” NBC stumbled into this headline and subhead to describe Einhorn: 

Earth Day co-founder killed, composted girlfriend. Ira Einhorn preached against Vietnam War and violence, but had dark side. 

 

 

 

. 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

EARTH DAY PREDICTIONS OF 1970. THE REASON YOU SHOULDN’T BELIEVE EARTH DAY PREDICTIONS OF 2020.

 

 

 

 

.

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

On the eve of 2011’s “Earth Day,” NBC stumbled into this headline and subhead to describe Einhorn: 

Earth Day co-founder killed, composted girlfriend. Ira Einhorn preached against Vietnam War and violence, but had dark side. 

 

Composting your murder victims? Now that's caring for the environment!

[/dev/null]

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Composting your murder victims? Now that's caring for the environment!

 

Reminds me of that scene from the end of Fargo

[B-Man]

 

[Wacka]

2 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

Reminds me of that scene from the end of Fargo

He didn't compost her. He stuffed her in a footlocker and okayed it ib the closet of his apartment. The neighbor called the super because because of age smell coming from his apartment.  When the cops found her, he claimed he didn't know how she got there. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

18 hours ago, B-Man said:

EARTH DAY PREDICTIONS OF 1970. THE REASON YOU SHOULDN’T BELIEVE EARTH DAY PREDICTIONS OF 2020.

 

Ok, well I get the point being made here: shockingly, it is possible for scientists to be incorrect. But this particular article seems to be filled with selection bias, no? 15 listed incorrect predictions from random people in 1970, but no reference to any correct predictions made by scientists within the past 50 years. 4 of the wildest quotes came from one singular fella named Kenneth Watt. I don’t know what the deal was with this guy. Others were vague predictions of doom and gloom too general to even be considered “testable.” Some of these predictions didn’t come from qualified scientists. Others referenced global food shortages and pollution, problems which still could have conceivably come true were it not for agricultural innovations and effective environmental regulations achieved throughout the 70’ and 80’s.

 

On 4/18/2020 at 11:58 AM, Joe Miner said:

 

Last comment and I'm out.

 

Your full faith is in the science of others. You are a true believer. Any attempt to make you question the science you defend will be met with more quotes of scripture and verse from said science.

 

The idea that you even remotely support the green new deal shines as a bright beacon of your faith.

 

Peace be with you.

 

I am a devout “believer” in the scientific method. I believe that reason, logic, facts, and evidence will eventually overcome whatever personal biases, groupthink, and research grant influences that exist within the scientific community. If the current scientific consensus of man-made climate change is wrong, it will be made obvious and break down soon enough. But an opposing case being made is much more credible if it comes from trained scientists in the subject and not from laypeople. There are always heretical scientists out there eager to prove their colleagues wrong and make their name in science. If you provide research papers or articles for me to read from dissenting climatologists, I am more than happy to look over them and reevaluate my stance. I certainly hope I am wrong on this subject. No need for lengthy replies. Quick links will suffice.

 

As for the practical solutions side to the debate, you seem extremely bothered by the very notion that I would be open to Green New Deal solutions. If I’m placing my full faith in the religion of science, is it not possible that you are doing something similar for the “religion” of economic libertarianism? Again, no need to reply if you don’t want to do so. Just something to consider.

 

On 4/18/2020 at 7:27 AM, Bill from NYC said:

I think that you have much more faith in China to do the right thing than I do. That is easy to achieve too because I have none.

 

I hear ya, but I see no other realistic choice. Isolating China from its allies because of its fossil fuel usage seems to be our best option. In my opinion, the much easier part would be controlling the CCP via their resolute obsession for global economic hegemony. The much harder part may be getting the EU and the US on the same diplomatic page with China’s current allies, like Russia and many of the Islamic countries, whose economies are already heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Hmmm…..

[Bill from NYC]

1 hour ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

I hear ya, but I see no other realistic choice. Isolating China from its allies because of its fossil fuel usage seems to be our best option. In my opinion, the much easier part would be controlling the CCP via their resolute obsession for global economic hegemony. The much harder part may be getting the EU and the US on the same diplomatic page with China’s current allies, like Russia and many of the Islamic countries, whose economies are already heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Hmmm…..

I am not so sure if Russia and China are "allies." One would think that the lack of demand for oil is hurting Russia, but they are still a world power due to their weaponry.

 

You are young but if you read up on it, China didn't like Russia as far back as Nixon and Kissenger. Those two are said to have paved the way for our relationship with China.

 

Call me simplistic, but imo we could really hurt China by consumerism. It may sound banal but simply "buying American" would cost us a bit more initially but benefit us in the long run. I am not wanting to "punish" them, but; I resent how dependent on them that we seem to be. They were getting away with murder in terms of tariffs with previous administrations. Hopefully, Americans have had enough after this disaster, which might have been intentional. This we will never know.

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by Bill from NYC

[unbillievable]

3 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Ok, well I get the point being made here: shockingly, it is possible for scientists to be incorrect. But this particular article seems to be filled with selection bias, no? 15 listed incorrect predictions from random people in 1970, (How dare you!) ~Greta, (We only got 11 more years!) ~AOC

 

but no reference to any correct predictions made by scientists within the past 50 years. 4 of the wildest quotes came from one singular fella named Kenneth Watt. (Al Gore says hi)

 

I don’t know what the deal was with this guy. Others were vague predictions of doom and gloom too general to even be considered “testable.” Some of these predictions didn’t come from qualified scientists. (Bill Nye)

 

Others referenced global food shortages and pollution, problems which still could have conceivably come true were it not for agricultural innovations and effective environmental regulations achieved throughout the 70’ and 80’s. (Innovation stopped being a thing in the 90's?)

 

So you agree that predictions in the 70's are just as reliable as now...

[3rdnlng]

15 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

So you agree that predictions in the 70's are just as reliable as now...

  3 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Ok, well I get the point being made here: shockingly, it is possible for scientists to be incorrect. But this particular article seems to be filled with selection bias, no? 15 listed incorrect predictions from random people in 1970, (How dare you!) ~Greta, (We only got 11 more years!) ~AOC

 

but no reference to any correct predictions made by scientists within the past 50 years. 4 of the wildest quotes came from one singular fella named Kenneth Watt. (Al Gore says hi)

 

I don’t know what the deal was with this guy. Others were vague predictions of doom and gloom too general to even be considered “testable.” Some of these predictions didn’t come from qualified scientists. (Bill Nye)

 

Others referenced global food shortages and pollution, problems which still could have conceivably come true were it not for agricultural innovations and effective environmental regulations achieved throughout the 70’ and 80’s. (Innovation stopped being a thing in the 90's?)

Nothing really happened in the 90's. "Big Hair" consumed that decade.

[Koko78]

29 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

So you agree that predictions in the 70's are just as reliable as now...

 

Maybe. It's pretty cold outside. Global cooling is real, dammit!

[Buffalo_Gal]

Biden wins, he's going to invest a trillion dollars in the green new deal crap!
 

 

 

 

[bbb]

I've gotta say that I haven't seen Greta in quite a while and that's rather refreshing.  

[KRC]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

 

What's his opinion on gasoline-powered private planes used to fly around the world telling people to stop burning fossil fuels?

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, KRC said:

 

What's his opinion on gasoline-powered private planes used to fly around the world telling people to stop burning fossil fuels?

Our "betters" are nothing if not hypocrites.
 

[KRC]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

Our "betters" are nothing if not hypocrites.
 

 

The typical "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

[Koko78]

14 minutes ago, bbb said:

I've gotta say that I haven't seen Greta in quite a while and that's rather refreshing.  

 

She did try to claim she got the Flu Manchu a few weeks ago... even though she was never tested, diagnosed, or treated for it. She *knows* she had it though.

 

It's amazing that she became not only a climate expert, but also a medical expert... all while skipping high school for the past couple years.

15 minutes ago, KRC said:

 

What's his opinion on gasoline-powered private planes used to fly around the world telling people to stop burning fossil fuels?

 

Bah, everyone knows that environmentalist jet fuel is made from clean-burning unicorn farts!

[3rdnlng]

36 minutes ago, bbb said:

I've gotta say that I haven't seen Greta in quite a while and that's rather refreshing.  

Note that she disappeared about the same time as Grandma Liawatha. Sans the glasses there's quite a resemblance. At first I couldn't figure it out then I remembered that Native Americans are very closely related to the Swedish people. I think the angry persona that Greta portrays is inherited from Lizzy who got it from the Cherokee Nation.