Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28551 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #300 on: February 08, 2019, 07:38:45 am »
Right then. To hell with science. What's in the bowl?

that's TimG's anti-science bowl... ask him what's in it!

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #301 on: February 08, 2019, 08:20:45 am »
that's TimG's anti-science bowl... ask him what's in it!
I used to assume you were simply an ideologue that understood the arguments I made but chose to ignore them. I now see that you are simply a clueless idiot who has no idea what science is and how it works and can only cut and paste crap from other locations that you do not actually understand.

So it is laughable for you to claim I am 'anti-science' when you can't even understand the scientific reasoning that goes into my arguments. For example, any competent scientist knows that simply saying that GW may have an effect on fire risk is meaningless unless you compare too other things that also contribute to the risk. But instead of acknowledging the unscientific nature of the question you pose, you throw a fit because I call your bluff and insisted of properly framing the question.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 08:23:00 am by TimG »

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #302 on: February 08, 2019, 10:47:54 am »
Quote
...scientific reasoning that goes into my arguments.

TimG, you're not a scientist.  You have no expertise.  You have no knowledge of climatology. 

You should get your PhD and refute the common understanding of climate change using the scientific method.  Instead, you're like the anti-vaxers or flat-earthers...   no knowledge of the subject, yet you know the "truth" that all the actual experts are wrong.   ::)
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #303 on: February 08, 2019, 01:52:03 pm »
I've always wandered why NASA just does not launch garbage and other pollutants into space. A 10km wide slingshot could be used to send debris into orbit.

Assuming your calculations are correct (or even made), is that enough to escape Earth's gravitational field? If not, how do you control their orbit to ensure they don't hit anything (ie. satellites). What is the slingshot made out, and how may times can it be reused before failing? How much energy does it take to stretch the slingshot? Do you have sufficient control over the course vector, or will the material you "launch" potentially hit satellites? What happens if the slingshot breaks?

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #304 on: February 08, 2019, 02:05:33 pm »
Assuming your calculations are correct (or even made), is that enough to escape Earth's gravitational field? If not, how do you control their orbit to ensure they don't hit anything (ie. satellites). What is the slingshot made out, and how may times can it be reused before failing? How much energy does it take to stretch the slingshot? Do you have sufficient control over the course vector, or will the material you "launch" potentially hit satellites? What happens if the slingshot breaks?

Can't find a cite for it just now, but I seem to recall some dude back in the day saying he was gonna use a slingshot to launch a Volkswagen into low earth orbit. Maybe there's a reason we haven't heard much from him lately.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #305 on: February 08, 2019, 03:08:59 pm »
TimG, you're not a scientist.  You have no expertise.  You have no knowledge of climatology.
Most of climate science is statistical analysis. The notion that only members of a self appointed club are capable of looking at the issues and developing an informed opinion is pathetic nonsense. There are a lot of people in the world who are more than qualified to comment on climate science and most don't work in the field. Note that almost all major scientific breakthroughs prior to 1900 were made by self taught amateurs. Rejecting opinions without investigation because they don't come from self appointed gatekeepers is a recipe for ignorance.

You should get your PhD and refute the common understanding of climate change using the scientific method.
More pathetic appeals to authority. My problem with climate science as a field is it has abandoned any pretense of impartiality and active promotes political causes. Climate scientists have said on a number of occasions that they will suppress results that don't fit the narrative because they don't want to give ammunition to political opponents. This attitude means nothing they say can be trusted which, in turn, means there are no authorities qualified to speak on climate issues.

I realize that global warming zealots are willful blind the group think in climate science because climate scientists say what they want to here. But the fact that you are blind does not mean it is not a big problem and more importantly, you have no business telling me that I should place my trust in a bunch of left wing zealots pretending to be scientists just because you say I should.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 03:12:13 pm by TimG »
Dumb Dumb x 4 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #306 on: February 08, 2019, 03:12:45 pm »
I am more qualified to perform brain surgery than any neurosurgeon, I am self taught.
Funny Funny x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #307 on: February 08, 2019, 03:21:40 pm »
Most of climate science is statistical analysis. The notion that only members of a self appointed club are capable of looking at the issues and developing an informed opinion is pathetic nonsense. There are a lot of people in the world who are more than qualified to comment on climate science and most don't work in the field. Note that almost all major scientific breakthroughs prior to 1900 were made by self taught amateurs. Rejecting opinions without investigation because they don't come from self appointed gatekeepers is a recipe for ignorance.
More pathetic appeals to authority. My problem with climate science as a field is it has abandoned any pretense of impartiality and active promotes political causes. Climate scientists have said on a number of occasions that they will suppress results that don't fit the narrative because they don't want to give ammunition to political opponents. This attitude means nothing they say can be trusted which, in turn, means there are no authorities qualified to speak on climate issues.

I realize that global warming zealots are willful blind the group think in climate science because climate scientists say what they want to here. But the fact that you are blind does not mean it is not a big problem and more importantly, you have no business telling me that I should place my trust in a bunch of left wing zealots pretending to be scientists just because you say I should.

I presume then that you don't believe in medical science either, and so if for instance someone breaks a leg there is no need to put a cast on as it will simply heal itself. 
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #308 on: February 08, 2019, 03:44:07 pm »
I presume then that you don't believe in medical science either, and so if for instance someone breaks a leg there is no need to put a cast on as it will simply heal itself.
The trouble with these discussions is I have to deal with ideologues that don't actually read the arguments I write and instead respond with strawmen based on whatever delusions they have.

To put it simply: I have a problem with the field of climate science because there is overwhelming evidence that it has been politicized and is no longer willing or able to investigate the science without considering the effect on politics. If major figures and institutions in climate climate acknowledged the problem and made a concerted effort to depoliticize the field then they could regain my trust over a number of years. But there is no sign if this happening.

The net result of politicization is I will automatically assume that any claims by climate scientists are exaggerated and/or misrepresentations of facts even if partially true. I certainly will not agree to dismantle the technological infrastructure we have today based on the word of clearly biased individuals.

What this also means I have no issues with other fields of scientific endevour where science still matters.


« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 03:47:51 pm by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #309 on: February 08, 2019, 03:50:59 pm »
The trouble with these discussions is I have to deal with ideologues that don't actually read the arguments I write and instead respond with strawmen based on whatever delusions they have.

To put it simply: I have a problem with the field of climate science because there is overwhelming evidence that it has been politicized and is no longer willing or able to investigate the science without considering the effect on politics. If major figures and institutions in climate climate acknowledged the problem and made a concerted effort to depoliticize the field then they could regain my trust over a number of years. But there is no sign if this happening.

The net result of politicization is I will automatically assume that any claims by climate scientists are exaggerated and/or misrepresentations of facts even if partially true. I certainly will not agree to dismantle the technological infrastructure we have today based on the word of clearly biased individuals.

What this also means I have no issues with other fields of scientific endevour where science still matters.

Once again you claim to know better than the clear majority of the professional climate scientists. It's just not working for ya.

How would you explain actual sat. photos of over 1.4 million sq. km's of missing arctic ice cap? Or do you just ignore that science?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 03:55:45 pm by Omni »
Like Like x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #310 on: February 08, 2019, 04:01:33 pm »
I have a problem with the field of climate science because there is overwhelming evidence that it has been politicized and is no longer willing or able to investigate the science without considering the effect on politics.

The science has not been politicized. Just because political hacks are pretending they know more than the scientists doesn't make the science itself politicized. You are listening to the noise, and then say since the noise is drowning out the science I will discredit the science.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #311 on: February 08, 2019, 05:54:08 pm »
The science has not been politicized. Just because political hacks are pretending they know more than the scientists doesn't make the science itself politicized. You are listening to the noise, and then say since the noise is drowning out the science I will discredit the science.
Give me break. I have been following this topic for 15+ years and I am seen example after example of credentialed scientists making scientifically sound claims only to be viciously attacked and ostracized by their peers.  I have seen more than one example of climate scientists admitting they suppress adverse results via self censorship or via the peer review system because they don't want to undermine the political cause. And don't get me started on so called scientists defending obvious errors in papers because acknowledging and fixing them would undermine the "cause".

If climate scientists have a credibility problem it was one they created themselves.

But go ahead. Blame it all on a vast right wing conspiracy instead of actually accepting that these people are human and act like humans.

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #312 on: February 08, 2019, 08:02:11 pm »
Quote
If climate scientists have a credibility problem it was one they created themselves

But they don’t have a credibility problem.... 

There are science deniers like yourself trying to paint it that way, but that’s all it is.   It’s like the anti-Vaxers who think they know better than the experts in immunology.  No different. 

Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10186
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #313 on: February 08, 2019, 09:08:27 pm »
The science has not been politicized. Just because political hacks are pretending they know more than the scientists doesn't make the science itself politicized. You are listening to the noise, and then say since the noise is drowning out the science I will discredit the science.

The science seems pretty darned politicized to me.  I would hate to work in this field, you wouldn't know what's real anymore.  I also think it's very difficult to be both a scholar and an activist, no matter the subject, because then you have to deal with confirmation bias.  There's zero room for emotion in science. Not to say there isn't great climate science out there, or that AGW isn't happening and a big problem.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/second-opinion-scientists-data-fudging-1.4861556
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 09:10:51 pm by Poonlight Graham »
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley
Agree Agree x 1 Bad Spelling Bad Spelling x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #314 on: February 08, 2019, 11:13:25 pm »
Give me break. I have been following this topic for 15+ years and I am seen example after example of credentialed scientists making scientifically sound claims only to be viciously attacked and ostracized by their peers.  I have seen more than one example of climate scientists admitting they suppress adverse results via self censorship or via the peer review system because they don't want to undermine the political cause. And don't get me started on so called scientists defending obvious errors in papers because acknowledging and fixing them would undermine the "cause".

If climate scientists have a credibility problem it was one they created themselves.

But go ahead. Blame it all on a vast right wing conspiracy instead of actually accepting that these people are human and act like humans.

So no idea what caused all that ice to melt? Thought so.