Climate talks fail

Post Reply New Topic

How about "Climate Heretic" or "Climate Infidel" instead?

Note how they’re not addressing anything you say.

Can't verify all the stuff you read on the internet. But it sounds convincing to you, so that's good enough for you. It doesn't sound convincing to others, so that's good enough for them.

How about going back to:" Skeptic"?

I beg your pardon...



There you go.

Tollorin may gain some respect from me if he stops using the term: "climate deniers".
People who use it are either ignorant of the negative connotation or deliberately disrespectful.

I imagine the man-made-climate-change policy architects that are responsible for this sort of nonsense are marketing manager wannabes.
Grand psychological manipulators,
In their own mind.
Goebbels would be proud.

D'oh!
Now you guys are making *me* do it.

Godwin is lurking in the bushes somewhere!
I'm sure of it!

That sounds too rational.

Last edited by EzraS on 01 Jan 2020, 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Are you not familiar with the concept of 'seeking a second opinion'?

Initial diagnoses are frequently incorrect. Keeping that in mind, it would seem (at least to me) that the most rational course of action would be to:

A) Collect data from all available sources
B) Analyze said data
C) Evaluate the results of step B
D) Proceed


Holy freaking unicorn dung. It ain't rocket surgery. All it takes is a little effort.
If you keep your brain in the palm of your hand all your have to do is twitch your fingers.
Read beyond the headlines. Look beyond Google's front page. Be objective. Learn to think for yourself.


Are you the Borg?

It isn't just one reliable secondary source, there are multiple textbooks and reviews in peer-reviewed journals in the field of climatology that tell us that. Getting a second opinion means going to another expert in the field, not going to someone who's unqualified.



I dispute this, and I think how this thread played out belies what you said. Obviously, it's good to be objective and to think for yourself, but it's also good to know the limitations of your understanding. You're acting like you can do the work of PhD-level scientists in the field of climatology with just "a little effort". I don't buy it for one second.

Now, how does this thread belie what you said? Well, if you go a few pages back, you posted a bunch of graphs that seemed to show the sea level dropping around certain tropical locations. You posted it like those graphs themselves were sufficient to conclude sea levels aren't really rising and the scientists are lying to us. Kokopelli came in and mentioned that it's actually a lot more complicated than that, even posting an excerpt from a peer-reviewed study that said this same thing. It took someone else coming in to tell us it isn't that simple and thus just going off the graphs themselves would be misleading. Why didn't you tell us that it wasn't that simple? It took someone else coming in to make that clear point. Either you didn't know what you were talking about or you were trying to mislead us. Since I assume good faith on your part, I assume the former. And just so you don't misunderstand, I don't mean to say you're stupid; only that you're unqualified.

This is the problem with self-teaching and thinking it only requires "a little effort" to do PhD-level work, you end up missing a lot of stuff and misinterpreting the primary evidence because you don't know all the factors and other things that go into interpreting it correctly, in a manner that actually reflects reality.

And I'm going to say that it seems like you have zero respect for climatologists.

Why are you so fixated on 'secondary sources' and authority?
Must you always have someone else telling you what to think?




I posted those graphs to show that a certain forum member was lying to us.
Those graphs (compiled by scientists) made the point quite clearly.

Some climatologists, perhaps?

I chose a different tack.
Exposing falsehood and disreputable behaviour through critical thinking.

Climate change modelling that is wrong.
Climate change predictions that have not eventuated.
Tampering with data.
Homogenisation of information to favour a particular bias.
Lies through omission in charting.
Admissions that gross exaggeration was used to motivate action.
The use of emotionalism rather than rationalism.
Disrespecting scientific methodology.
Claiming the science has been proven when it clearly is not.
Use of intimidation.
Use of emotional blackmail.
Use of financial blackmail.
Misrepresentation of the facts.
Presentation of statements which are clearly misleading.
The element of financial corruption influencing social policy.
Government political interference.
Citizen Scientist Activist interference.
The practice of favouring only certain scientific research directions.
The loss of integrity of the peer review system.
Appeal to authority, even when that authority is not qualified.
The embracing of blind faith as opposed to developing and engaging critical thinking skills.

Yep,
No reason to be skeptical.

Are you an Aussie?

Edit:
What about the tidal factor?

Last edited by Pepe on 01 Jan 2020, 5:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bill Nye is the only scientist I know the name of that I can connect to climate change. All the others seem to be clouded in obscurity to the general public.

Nope. Alaskan.


Oh no. Is climate change responsible for the tides too?

SoloSailor,

The little tweet you have there about Sydney Harbor appears to be wrong:

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview ... -occurred/

This is the problem of practicing science when you're unqualified. You can't be sure that you're correct, and are taking into account every factor that you need to, because you have no idea what you're doing, even if you think you do. Because of that, "thinking for yourself here" means realizing the limitations of your knowledge. It means having humility. It means not thinking that every thought you have or every conclusion you make is automatically correct simply because you consider yourself a "rational person".

Is it? Note the caption "Unprecedented climate change...".
Once again:





Edit: specific to Sydney harbor: