Climate talks fail

Post Reply New Topic

Scary headline:

(Bolding mine)
"15 percent of the continent's surface melted on Monday" ?? ROTFLMAO.
Sooo... the basis for declaring this "Climate Emergency" is a predictive model and not actual observation?
Reading a little further, it seems that is indeed the case:


Conclusion:
Yet one more example of clickbait alarmism doom porn containing nothing more than conjecture and hyperbole.

Fettweis also said this:

So I dispute your statement that it is just "conjecture and hyperbole". They seem to have good reason to think this.

But here is the problem, I am not a scientist, and I don't know a lot of the ins and outs of this issue. I'd say you'd better be glad that no real climate scientist has ever come into this forum, because you probably wouldn't be able to get away with being the jackass you usually act like here ("ROTFLMAO" this). However, for me, if the scientific consensus says that's what it is, then chances are, they're correct, and we should take it seriously. People who go around the scientists directly to the public, and take advantage of people who don't know the subject very well, are in all probability charlatans taking advantage of their interlocutors' ignorance (and that would include my own ignorance). If you want to know why I stand firm, this is why. Yes, you sometimes present the evidence in a way that seems compelling, but it only appears compelling to an ignoramus like me. I recognize the limitations of my knowledge, and realize that what sounds compelling to me on a subject I know little about, may not be correct. I think it's high time the rest of us do the same. I trust that most scientists are working in good faith, and are doing their best to present the best understanding of their field.

Clash of the Titans.

Unfortunately, climate activists have damaged the credibility of this claim.
"Scientific Consensus" which includes "Citizen Scientist Activists" is a corruption of the "Consensus", in my book.

I am aware of the political buggery of Neurotypical society.
I wouldn't assume the authenticity of these sorts of claims without sceptical examination.

I came across a recent video which looked into this sort of thing.
Yes, the speaker is a conservative,
But progressives are hardly likely to damage their own position.

I am not sure I can find it again.
If I'm successful, I will post it.

What part of the above statement do you not understand?

If you wish to allow others to do your thinking for you then that is certainly your choice.

As for myself, I've never been a follower. The idea of allowing others to dictate my thoughts and actions is utterly alien and abhorrent to me. If there's one thing that I've learned in my lifetime, it's that goosestepping along with the herd is generally a very bad idea.

And BTW, the claim that "15 percent of the continent's surface melted on Monday" *is* truly laughable.

But if you just think for yourself, and never rely on expert opinion, how would you ever know what the best choices are? How would you know you have the best understanding of a subject? Just because you feel like you do?

I think what I'm bringing up here comes to the heart of the climate change debate. America is a very individualist culture, one where people like to think they're self-sufficient renaissance men. The idea of relying on others for expert opinion and interdependency, making decisions as a group together, is unappealing. But chances are, you're not going to develop doctoral-level knowledge of climate change, math, political science, and all subjects in a single lifetime. You sometimes have to rely on other people to be your eyes and ears.

The term "Denialist" is deliberately used to invoke sanctimony.
And to stymie rational debate.
It is an attempt to discredit sceptics through association.

"Holocaust Denier",
"Climate Change Denier".

It shows the lack of integrity of the progressives who use this term.
It is an attempt to convince someone on the basis of irrational emotionalism rather than rational reasoning.

The problem which rationalists face is that most people prioritise their emotional needs over their intellectual considerations.
I.E.
Most are not rational in their decision making processes.

This tendency is exploited by those with an agenda.
The disrespect is profound.
To use a well-known expression,
People are being used as "useful idiots" so that others can achieve their political goals.

Of course, this is just my opinion here,
But I do value my skill in objective critical thinking,
Even if others don't.

In conclusion:
People who use the term: "Climate Change Denier",
Are not only disrespectful to the Holocaust victims through the exploitation of their suffering,
They are dirty smelly self-righteous doo doos to boot.

Logic and deductive reasoning.


Ummmm. No. Not even close.


Oh. If only that were true....

With the knowledge that political agendas have no respect for the truth,
Hence the need for scepticism.

<ponders>
I feel like an annoying bug buzzing around two gladiators,
And luving it.

Here's the rub. Why have you not been able to convince the scientists involved of what you're saying, if it's so important? Why bring it to us? Sure, you may answer that the scientists are the victims of "groupthink", but sometimes the issue isn't that, sometimes it's that the person bringing it up doesn't know why they themselves are wrong.

Why would you assume that I've even tried?

A much better question would be:
Why aren't those scientists whose views and supporting data contradict the status quo allowed to voice those views on mainstream media, governmental panels etc.?

Science isn't a popularity contest- nor is it a place for censorship.


Um, yeah... there's a lot of that going around.

Cut out your victim complex crap. The mainstream media frequently allows people who contradict the status quo on the air. In fact they do it so much, a lot of people argue there's undue weight being given to their views due to the scientific consensus. The IPCC is supposed to review the literature and give proper weight to the papers, and as things stand it is in favor of anthropogenic global warming. You have yet to prove you're a bunch of Galileos.

Just logged in. Interesting reading. I wonder if any of it has made its way over to the mod thread.

Annoying, no. Amusing, yes.

If it does, I wonder if it'll get deleted again?

Victim complex? Can you support that allegation?


Do they? Can you provide some examples? Cite your sources. Please be specific.


Really? Can you provide some examples? Cite your sources. Please be specific.


The UN IPCC is a political organisation. Expecting impartiality from that quarter would be akin to expecting to see a herd of rainbow farting pink unicorns on your front porch every morning.