Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Pepe's Climate Thread

Page 9 of 11 [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

02 Oct 2019, 1:40 am

JohnPowell wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cberg wrote:
YouTube is not a scientific journal. Nice try though.


Who said it was?
Does it have to be?

BTW
Thank you for the: "nice try" comment.
I'm not sure what I did to deserve it but it is nice to receive positive replies from time to time. :wink:


It's cause he can't deal with the message. A scientist can make a video on YouTube, doesn't mean it is then illegitimate. The argument is childish nonsense.


Just because someone posts a video on YouTube that does not mean it originated from YouTube.



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

02 Oct 2019, 1:53 am

Exactly.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

02 Oct 2019, 1:59 am

EzraS wrote:
Just because someone posts a video on YouTube that does not mean it originated from YouTube.

Yeah, you need to check the sources of the video - and it's often a hard work to do it for it thoroughly.

As my laptop speakers are damaged and my English is much better in reading than listening... I don't even bother to open youtube explanations. Sorry.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

03 Oct 2019, 8:38 pm

JohnPowell wrote:

It's cause he can't deal with the message. A scientist can make a video on YouTube, doesn't mean it is then illegitimate. The argument is childish nonsense.


I listen/watch youtube podcasts all the time and have found them extremely useful in stimulating conceptual recognition.

But I have two main advantages:
1. I am old and wise.
2. I am intellectually brilliant beyond all belief.
2a. I am the Oracle of Truth and am a Zen master in obtaining and maintaining an objective mindset.
2b. I am prepared to alter my philosophy if confronted with convincing arguments because that is the quality type of guy I am. :mrgreen:

God is "Truth" people. 8)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

27 Oct 2019, 4:59 pm

This link was given to me by a masked man driven by the quest for: "truth, justice and all that stuff".

Quote:
(Updated Oct. 23, 2019) Retired Principal Scientific Officer (PSO) for the British Government exposes “discrepancies” in NASA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) which serve to make recent temperatures seem warmer.

The “mistakes” point to possible fraud intended to give scientific credence to tax-raising UK and US climate policies.


https://climatechangedispatch.com/whist ... mate-data/

It astounds me that even more mature people simply accept what is tossed their way without engaging critical thinking.
I understand younger people failing to enquire and consider the complexity of the subject, but older supposedly wiser individuals?

Climate change is not a black-and-white/binary issue and those who ignore "confirmation bias", hidden agendas including financial considerations and political intrigue have a limited intellectual scope.

While the information in the link is intriguing, I see no reason not to maintain a sceptical attitude on the entire subject.
After all, scientific methodology is dependant on scepticism. 8)



Apuleius
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 88
Location: Boston

27 Oct 2019, 10:59 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cberg wrote:
YouTube is not a scientific journal. Nice try though.


Who said it was?
Does it have to be?

BTW
Thank you for the: "nice try" comment.
I'm not sure what I did to deserve it but it is nice to receive positive replies from time to time. :wink:


It's cause he can't deal with the message. A scientist can make a video on YouTube, doesn't mean it is then illegitimate. The argument is childish nonsense.


A scientist who wants to debug a hoax will at least name the hoaxer.

Yet nobody ever does.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

28 Oct 2019, 3:44 am

Those interested in the differences between GHCN and GISS may find this interesting: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

Also worth noting that both the UK and the US are currently cutting taxes...



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

28 Oct 2019, 6:54 am

Pepe wrote:
This link was given to me by a masked man driven by the quest for: "truth, justice and all that stuff".

Quote:
(Updated Oct. 23, 2019) Retired Principal Scientific Officer (PSO) for the British Government exposes “discrepancies” in NASA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) which serve to make recent temperatures seem warmer.

The “mistakes” point to possible fraud intended to give scientific credence to tax-raising UK and US climate policies.


https://climatechangedispatch.com/whist ... mate-data/

It astounds me that even more mature people simply accept what is tossed their way without engaging critical thinking.
I understand younger people failing to enquire and consider the complexity of the subject, but older supposedly wiser individuals?

Climate change is not a black-and-white/binary issue and those who ignore "confirmation bias", hidden agendas including financial considerations and political intrigue have a limited intellectual scope.

While the information in the link is intriguing, I see no reason not to maintain a sceptical attitude on the entire subject.
After all, scientific methodology is dependant on scepticism. 8)


I concur.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

28 Oct 2019, 2:26 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Those interested in the differences between GHCN and GISS may find this interesting: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

Also worth noting that both the UK and the US are currently cutting taxes...

2 points:

1. Those who firmly believe in extensive man-made-climate-change have excuses for everything/k and will rationalise any anomalies to their narrative, or so it seems.
The "Beast from the East" was also due to "Global Warming", "apparently".
Better minds than mine have pointed this out.

2. In America, I believe Trump, a conservative, was responsible for the lowering of the tax scale to stimulate business.
I believe left-leaning/socialistic individuals are the ones who want to increase taxes to homogenise/redistribute wealth throughout society.
I don't know what the situation is in the UK but I suspect the same applies.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

28 Oct 2019, 4:44 pm

Pepe wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Those interested in the differences between GHCN and GISS may find this interesting: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

Also worth noting that both the UK and the US are currently cutting taxes...

2 points:

1. Those who firmly believe in extensive man-made-climate-change have excuses for everything/k and will rationalise any anomalies to their narrative, or so it seems.
The "Beast from the East" was also due to "Global Warming", "apparently".
Better minds than mine have pointed this out.

2. In America, I believe Trump, a conservative, was responsible for the lowering of the tax scale to stimulate business.
I believe left-leaning/socialistic individuals are the ones who want to increase taxes to homogenise/redistribute wealth throughout society.
I don't know what the situation is in the UK but I suspect the same applies.

1. Climate change deniers can always make things up and then just dismiss the explanation out of hand. If you're interested in truth then doesn't the existence of answers provide some help with that? And of course there's a difference between science and how common people react to the science - it's not sensible to suggest that scientists are lying just because the XR activist got the facts wrong.

2. So the argument is that government-funded climate scientists are lying about global warming in order to give the government an excuse to raise taxes. The suggestion being that scientists are only finding the results they are because that's what their paymasters want, not because they're true. But the government doesn't want to raise taxes, and would much rather cut them or use the money pledged for decarbonisation on vote-winning policies like health, so surely the scientists should be finding that climate change isn't real?



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

28 Oct 2019, 6:52 pm

No one denies climate change. People are rightly sceptical about the man made global warming hoax and the end of days style conspiracy theory scare stories. WE HAVE 11 YEARS. Only trouble being that we had '11 years' in 1989 :lol:


https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Apuleius
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 88
Location: Boston

28 Oct 2019, 10:12 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
No one denies climate change. People are rightly sceptical about the man made global warming hoax


And yet nobody can name the author of the hoax, which is really strange, since all you have to do is find the first scientist to say whatever it is you think is a hoax. It should take under 10 minutes.

Was it Eunice Newton Foote?
John Tyndall?
Svante Arrhenius (Greta Thunberg's distant cousin)?
G. S. Callendar?
Charles Keeling?
Gilbert Plass?



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

29 Oct 2019, 8:21 am

There doesn't need to be an author so cut the strawman arguments.

The UN is part of it as I showed in the article. Al Gore made a fortune with with partner David Blood (Blood & Gore). Gore is a billionaire along with Bill Gates who both support it. As does Soros.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Apuleius
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 88
Location: Boston

29 Oct 2019, 9:51 am

JohnPowell wrote:
There doesn't need to be an author so cut the strawman arguments.


Oh, yes there does. If it's a hoax, there was someone who cooked up the hoax.
And finding his name should take under 10 minutes. There's a reason why scientific journals are organized and indexed in particular ways/



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

29 Oct 2019, 11:55 am

It's irrelevant. The hoax is being pushed and it's a hoax. I don't care who first thought of it.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Apuleius
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 88
Location: Boston

29 Oct 2019, 3:10 pm

"It's irrelevant"

How's it irrelevant? A hoax is an attempt by a human to deceive other humans.
If global warming is a hoax, then a specific human started it. And it is trivially easy to figure out his name.

And yet nobody ever does. For 30 years right wingers have been calling it a hoax, and not doing what should take 10 minutes.

Doesn't that strike you as odd?