I am sorry, it doesn’t seem self explanatory, please explain it to me.
Climate: The Movie
- Thread starter berty3000
- Start date
- Status
I am sorry, it doesn’t seem self explanatory, please explain it to me.
Sponsored Links
Your the one who said the glaciers we're melting because of climate change, I gave you an alternative reason.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 13,578
- Reaction score
- 1,076
- Country
Go on, it's simple.
Is man affecting climate change, or isn't he ?
It can be as simple as yes or no if you dare answer
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,578
- Reaction score
- 2,414
- Country
Yes, there's a reason for that.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,578
- Reaction score
- 2,414
- Country
You gave a gut feeling you mean. You need to learn the difference.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 13,578
- Reaction score
- 1,076
- Country
Did you not read where I used the word conjecture?
Go away if your doing one of your acting thick as a plank routines
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 13,578
- Reaction score
- 1,076
- Country
You havent answered the very simple question. Is man affecting claimate change, or isn't he ?
Just go for it. can you?
Are you Laurel, or hardy, I never know which of you is which
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,578
- Reaction score
- 2,414
- Country
I think he means maybe...
What is the rate of temperature change during an interglacial period?
What is the rate of temperature change over last century?
Poor NWGS is suffering from radiation sickness
If you'd read the thread, you would know. I even provided you with a link to my previous post to Minion addressing the matter of so called consensus research. To be fair, I don't blame you for overlooking it in amongst all the autistic posting going on. Here...
"Ok, let me spell this out for you since you probably haven't ever worked in research.
Let's say I have a PhD in Psychology. I need to earn a living and I have a decent shot at applying for some grant funding which is related to climate change. Here is my hypothesis:
"Violent crime has increased as a result of climate change"
In my abstract, I might write something along the lines of:
"There is a consensus that CO2 emissions contribute to climate change and that rising CO2 is causing the climate to warm. This research paper explores whether global warming results in an increase in violent crime by considering the rate of such crime recorded in the city of Troy, Ohio between 1950 and 2020..."
Now, any researcher worth his salt will obviously have a section about limitations. Maybe there's no obvious relationship, or maybe there is but other variables need to be explored, etc.
Point is, the consensus estimating researchers will come along with their meta analysis, covering thousands and thousands of research papers which they will never read in any detail at all, do an electronic search of terms and find in my abstract, and probably elsewhere in the document, that I have stated that "rising CO2 is causing the climate to warm." I will be added to the list of "active climate scientists" (because I am studying a climate related topic) and added to the list of those who think CO2 is contributing to climate change.
I, with my poxy BS research paper and my PhD in psychology, having never even considered the causes of climate change itself, and knowing nothing at all about it, am now one of the 97%!
What is laughable is that the consensus estimators are even worse grifters because they are basically producing misleading research about research. Crap on top of crap. A significant proportion of research is total rubbish and a waste of tax payer's money.
So you have to think things through and understand the details. To even mention the 97% consensus is automatically discrediting. It is a con."
Main takeaway from this thread: it obviously isn't a settled matter.
Hint: people wouldn't be arguing about it if it was.
On a side note, in what other areas of real science and for theories that are strong and settled, do you get so many space cadets in fancy dress and gluing themselves to roads in favour of it? Always given a soft touch approach by the mainstream media and police. Why is there this religious type fervour and shades of mental illness on show? When is a teenaged autist from Sweden used as a propaganda prop? When do billionaires and politicians, like pigs at a trough, fly to conferences in private jets and stay in luxurious, unsustainable hotels in the middle of the desert, contradicting the hypothesis they claim to agree with? And the wall to wall, hysterical coverage in the media for that particular hypothesis... e.g. blaming fires caused by arsonists on climate change, blaming extreme weather events on climate change and, by extension, humans? There are so many correlations with extremist religious thought patterns and the idea of God punishing our sins... I'm afraid it just completely undermines the alarmist perspective for thinking people.
Do any of the global boiling advocates have any comment on this side of it? Do you find it persuasive, reasonable, helpful, unhelpful? It is all specifically linked to the alarmist perspective.
Why aren't any other areas of science, and why aren't any other scientific hypotheses, partnered with these strange patterns of behaviour?
Hint: people wouldn't be arguing about it if it was.
On a side note, in what other areas of real science and for theories that are strong and settled, do you get so many space cadets in fancy dress and gluing themselves to roads in favour of it? Always given a soft touch approach by the mainstream media and police. Why is there this religious type fervour and shades of mental illness on show? When is a teenaged autist from Sweden used as a propaganda prop? When do billionaires and politicians, like pigs at a trough, fly to conferences in private jets and stay in luxurious, unsustainable hotels in the middle of the desert, contradicting the hypothesis they claim to agree with? And the wall to wall, hysterical coverage in the media for that particular hypothesis... e.g. blaming fires caused by arsonists on climate change, blaming extreme weather events on climate change and, by extension, humans? There are so many correlations with extremist religious thought patterns and the idea of God punishing our sins... I'm afraid it just completely undermines the alarmist perspective for thinking people.
Do any of the global boiling advocates have any comment on this side of it? Do you find it persuasive, reasonable, helpful, unhelpful? It is all specifically linked to the alarmist perspective.
Why aren't any other areas of science, and why aren't any other scientific hypotheses, partnered with these strange patterns of behaviour?
Last edited:
- Status
Sponsored Links
