Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 6581 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Pinus or Vid or...?????

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #510 on: May 16, 2019, 11:30:23 am »
hey meester chilipeppers... less DUMB tagging, more posting! Signed - the "community"

Sometimes I hope lightning strikes your keyboard, and you lose the ability to type.
If Omni, Impact, and the_squid ever had a love child, I would be him
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8246
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #511 on: May 16, 2019, 11:34:45 am »
Sometimes I hope lightning strikes your keyboard, and you lose the ability to type.

Well with the ever increasing occurrence/severity of lightning storms due to global warming you may just get your wish. Just make sure you keep an eye on the forecasts and be ready to pull your fingers back.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #512 on: May 16, 2019, 11:53:29 am »
This out of Germany ... and WOW!
Could the right-wing climate-change deniers be any more disgusting?!!
Vile personal attacks on a teenager because of her success in promoting awareness of climate change.
Absolutely VILE behaviour from so-called adults.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/14/germanys-afd-attacks-greta-thunberg-as-it-embraces-climate-denial
Germany’s rightwing populists are embracing climate change denial as the latest topic with which to boost their electoral support, teaming up with scientists who claim hysteria is driving the global warming debate and ridiculing the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg as “mentally challenged” and a fraud.
...
The party, whose members have been seen handing out climate change denial leaflets at school climate strikes, has ratcheted up its anti-Thunberg rhetoricahead of the EU parliamentary elections this month. Its candidates have made comparisons between the Swedish teenager and a member of a Nazi youth organisation and called for her to seek treatment for what Maximilian Krah, an AfD candidate for the EU elections, called her “psychosis”.
...
Attacking Greta, at times in fairly vicious ways, including mocking her for her autism, became a way to portray the AfD’s political opponents as irrational.”


Any party that hinges it's platform on such child abuse should be subject to disbanding and other appropriate legal punishments.
Disgusting fucking creeps!
The FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY no doubt supports them financially in such degraded behaviour, likely encourages these attacks ON A TEENAGER!

ABSOLUTE FILTH, ALL OF THEM !!
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 11:56:07 am by Granny »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #513 on: May 16, 2019, 12:20:54 pm »
Vile personal attacks on a teenager because of her success in promoting awareness of climate change.
You mean the teen that has been shamelessly exploited by alarmists for propaganda. Talk about the kettle calling pot black. This is also the same teen that claims to see CO2 in the air. Suggesting that she Mentally challenged and/or suffering from psychosis seems like a factual statement.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8246
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #514 on: May 16, 2019, 01:33:53 pm »
You mean the teen that has been shamelessly exploited by alarmists for propaganda. Talk about the kettle calling pot black. This is also the same teen that claims to see CO2 in the air. Suggesting that she Mentally challenged and/or suffering from psychosis seems like a factual statement.

I guess the far right climate denier idiots such as the AfD must be feeling a little feeble in their position if they need to attack a little girl such as Gretta to try to grab a headline. 

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #515 on: May 16, 2019, 01:50:35 pm »
You mean the teen that has been shamelessly exploited by alarmists for propaganda. Talk about the kettle calling pot black. This is also the same teen that claims to see CO2 in the air. Suggesting that she Mentally challenged and/or suffering from psychosis seems like a factual statement.

Links?
PROOF of exploitation, not just more of your predatory Alt-right filth and slanderous nonsense.
This is a minor child.
She is NOT an appropriate target for filthy fossil fuel  scum.

The fact of her Autism is not an indicator of anything other than that she is a child who may possess extraordinary and extrasensitive perceptions and abilities.

Only scum would attack a child that way.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 02:11:52 pm by Granny »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #516 on: May 16, 2019, 02:04:00 pm »
Links?
I gave you a link in my post. That is what the underlined text means. And if alarmists wish to exploit a teen by making her a spokes person for alarm-ism then her credibility is a valid target for critics. The idea that she should be able to spout incoherent nonsense and everyone has to bite their tongues because she is a child is ridiculous.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 02:07:00 pm by TimG »

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #517 on: May 16, 2019, 02:13:11 pm »
I gave you a link in my post. That is what the underlined text means. And if alarmists wish to exploit a teen by making her a spokes person for alarm-ism then her credibility is a valid target for critics. The idea that she should be able to spout incoherent nonsense and everyone has to bite their tongues because she is a child is ridiculous.

PROOF of exploitation.
Or are you just a filthy fossil fuel predator who would victimize a child?
Sick to death of those scum, who would stoop to child abuse as just another handy weapon to make more blood money.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 02:18:41 pm by Granny »
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #518 on: May 16, 2019, 02:42:45 pm »
I gave you a link in my post. That is what the underlined text means.
PROOF of nothing.
Quote
And if alarmists wish to exploit a teen by making her a spokes person for alarm-ism then her credibility is a valid target for critics.
No.
Prove she is exploited by "alarmists", and attack their credibility.
A child is never a "valid target" for abuse by adults.
(I have to actually tell you that?!!!)

Quote
The idea that she should be able to spout incoherent nonsense and everyone has to bite their tongues because she is a child is ridiculous.

So ... critique what she says.

But the vile and abusive personal attacks against a child as reported above ... that's the behaviour of criminals.

She is a child with a huge following, and that's a disturbing thing to the fossil fuel privateers.
But it is no justification for fossil fuel funded child abuse.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 02:46:09 pm by Granny »
Dislike Dislike x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #519 on: May 16, 2019, 03:05:50 pm »
PROOF of exploitation.
All of the media coverage that makes her out as a some sort of climate hero is exploitative. Any alarmist who uses her image to to promote alarmism is exploiting her. Children should not be used in such a way. Children have nothing of substance to contribute to the policy debate because they don't have enough life experience to understand how the real world works. Most children don't even understand what it is like to have to work to get enough money to put food on the table nevermind deal with questions of economics. The fact that this child also appears to be delusional makes the exploitation even worse.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Pinus or Vid or...?????

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #520 on: May 16, 2019, 06:47:52 pm »
PROOF of exploitation.
Or are you just a filthy fossil fuel predator who would victimize a child?
Sick to death of those scum, who would stoop to child abuse as just another handy weapon to make more blood money.

I hate those fossil fuel scum. They once lured me to their white van with the promise of "candy."
If Omni, Impact, and the_squid ever had a love child, I would be him
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7934
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #521 on: May 17, 2019, 05:55:26 am »
The net result is feeding random noise into the algorithm produces the same result.

Sorry, though - you yourself believe this correlation don't you ?

Quote
In theory, objective scientists should have looked at his techniques and recognized that they produce nothing meaningful and ignore his papers. However, since his results are politically useful the quibbles with his techniques are ignored and his glorified curve fitting is celebrated.

Smoothing and error correction requires knowledge of the subject matter.  Even a mathematician has limited ability to assess things like cofactors, or independence of variables.  While it's possible that the thousands of knowledgable scientists that have read this work said nothing, it's not believable to me.


Quote
alarmist scientists can always find excuses to reject skeptical lines of argument and why practicing academics have no incentive to invest their time in exploring these lines of evidence. The net result is the public interest in undermined and climate science cannot produce the research that we need to really understand the limits of our knowledge.

Of course they could but are they ?   And if so, how did they convince you ?

Quote
I see no difference between people rambling about "big oil" conspiracies and people going on about Soros. I see no difference between a moron that screams "denier" whenever someone questions some aspect of climate policy and a moron that claims that AGW is a UN plot. These people exist on all sides. Why do they have to prevent us from having a more nuanced discussion of what we know and what we do not?

Because people allow them to define points of discussion in the debate.  The incredible thing is that the science is far more discrete and has more capacity for objective exploration than the economics, and than our approaches to the problem.  And yet the debate on the science seems to be the more contentious one. 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #522 on: May 17, 2019, 07:32:55 am »
Smoothing and error correction requires knowledge of the subject matter.  Even a mathematician has limited ability to assess things like cofactors, or independence of variables.  While it's possible that the thousands of knowledgable scientists that have read this work said nothing, it's not believable to me.
Well that is the problem. You place too much weight on the idea that every narrow domain is so specialized that someone who is not a professional academic cannot read the literature and learn what is needed to provide a knowledgeable assessment. People with a lot of knowledge of math, statistics and the datasets in question have looked at these issues and provided more than adequate arguments that Mann's methods are junk and violate the basic rules of statistical analysis. I personally have enough knowledge of statistics to read the claims and counter claims to know that the critics have the better argument yet despite that many professional climate scientists refuse to acknowledge the obvious. This is why I say any scientific question that cannot be settled with replicable experiments is subjective and the answers change depending on the biases of the academics providing the answers.

Of course they could but are they ?   And if so, how did they convince you ?
They convinced me only in the areas where experimental replication can be used to validate the claim. In this case it is the warming effect of CO2 and a measurable increase in air and ocean temperatures over the last few decades. However, this tells us nothing about the amount of warming we will have to deal with or the consequences. The only thing that has been established is that it could be a big problem and therefore it would be prudent to act.

Because people allow them to define points of discussion in the debate.  The incredible thing is that the science is far more discrete and has more capacity for objective exploration than the economics, and than our approaches to the problem.  And yet the debate on the science seems to be the more contentious one.
This is entirely the fault of alarmists who decided that they would usurp the authority of science in order to push policy choices that are questions of values rather than science. This forced people who do not share the values and priorities of the alarmists to attack the science. If the alarmists had instead acknowledged that the decision on what to do about the science is a question of values then the science would have been left out of the debate (i.e. people would have agreed on the science but used arguments based on values to argue for their preferred policy choices). To provide an analogy: science may diagnose someone with cancer and provide treatment options but the question of what treatment to follow is a question of values.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2019, 03:20:40 pm by TimG »

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7934
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #523 on: May 17, 2019, 09:13:47 am »
wow! ...denigrate ALL world-wide scientists by collectively impugning their integrity, honesty and honor... to ply his false/fake narrative that prevailing science

You seem to be saying that I should deny obvious facts because they help his argument.  That's a great example of a Waldo thing.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #524 on: May 17, 2019, 11:21:07 am »
wow! How insightful of you - who knew scientists are humans! Of course, what you're really doing is, as you've done several times on "the other board", get suckered right into the TimG play. Are you at all surprised he's pulled out his tried&true - the Mann!  ;D You're the ultimate TimG enabler! What you did, what you're continuing to do, is take the circumstance of a couple/few scientists and a few hacked emails from a decade ago to allow TimG to use that once again to ply his false/fake narrative; one that purposely intends to denigrate ALL world-wide scientists by collectively impugning their integrity, honesty and honor... to ply his false/fake narrative that prevailing science (what he's just referred to as, "the glorious consensus") is simply a, as he's recently called it, "a popularity contest"!
You seem to be saying that I should deny obvious facts because they help his argument.  That's a great example of a Waldo thing.

in regards Hackergate, you're the one that said there was NO THERE, THERE... in your enabler mode (the MH thing) you then proceed to make hay over a couple of scientists and a few emails. The so-called TimG "argument" is his false/fake narrative that you're playing into.