Climate change(?)

[-X-]

Sigh

Easy on the sighs. That’s carbon monoxide you’re emitting into the ozone. Think of the children.

 

[Ellard80]

Easy on the sighs. That’s carbon monoxide you’re emitting into the ozone. Think of the children.

The bullshit (methane gas) in this thread alone has increased the worlds temperatue by 1 degree.

This non politcal thread is pretty much all political.

This thread draws me into it like a 3 dollar hooker... I can't escape it.

 

[Allen2McVay]

Easy on the sighs. That’s carbon monoxide you’re emitting into the ozone. Think of the children.

As long as he is wearing a mask, the risks are greatly reduced.

 

[Ellard80]

Or lemmings.

Consider this. In most capital cases being tried in a court of law, the prosecution and the defense both have expert witnesses. Both tell a different story. Both can’t be right. Trust them both anyway?

Sure - but finding a witness to say something you want isn't exactly on par with something like... 97% of multiple people saying the same thing - IE climate change

Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science...

climate.nasa.gov

I agree with you that critical thought is important - but completely objective critical thought. Seems to me to be dying fast.

Not to go too far down into the rabbit hole of climate change... just as an example!

 

[-X-]

Oh God, not the 97% thing again. 97% of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are likely the main cause? Meaning we are over 50% responsible? First, the warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, and a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half. PRIOR to that revelation (around 50 years ago) we were in a cooling phase that was its own existential threat to humanity.

But that aside. John Cook is the driver behind that stupid statistic. But when his study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”. That is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s own admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

So much more to say on this, but that’s enough.

 

[thirteen28]

Some people are idiots?

Yeah, that must be it. Because all of those experts just absolutely nailed it with all of their predictions up to this point.

 

[XXXIVwin]

The 97% consensus on global warming

<p>That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.</p>

skepticalscience.com

 

[XXXIVwin]

FLICC. Interesting acronym.

F-L-I-C-C: The most common disinformation tricks of science deniers | klimafakten.de

www.klimafakten.de

 

[-X-]

The 97% consensus on global warming

<p>That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.</p>

skepticalscience.com

John Cook was already dunked on by David Friedman who pointed out that of the 11,944 abstracts that Cook et al examined, only 64 claimed explicitly that humans are the main cause of global warming. 1.6%. Not 97%.

And before you try to impeach Friedman’s credentials, know that Cook is a solar scientist and not a climate scientist.

Also, 3 MILLION years ago, CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, according to researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), and published in Science Advances.

So I ask. How did humans contribute to those CO2 levels 3 million years ago? Was it all the Fred Fintstone cars on the road, or was it the polluting factory Mr Slate owned?

 

[-X-]

FLICC. Interesting acronym.

View attachment 40970

Mhm. “Conspiracy theory”. That’s a good one. Wonder why “truth” isn’t on that list? Presumably because it would fuck up the acronym. You do know that dismissing something as "conspiracy theory" without an adequate foundation is just another means of discrediting opponents and achieving narrative control, right? The earth is flat and NASA doesn’t want you to know. That’s a conspiracy theory. Debating the many competing views on climate change (formerly global warming, and before that global cooling) is not.

 

[Mister Sin]

Someone posted an article a few years back about the prediction of another ice age withing the next 20 years or so. It was an interesting read.

 

[-X-]

After much consideration, and deliberation with the admins here, it’s probably best to just lock this thread and the Covid thread, because they no longer serve as informative discussions. They’re actually quite divisive now. Probably my fault, but I claim diplomatic immunity and can’t be held liable for my crimes.