The Global warming thread


#1

This could probably go in the “religion” board but it’s also highly technical. No free speech board can be without a thread for liberals to accuse people like me of being anti-science.

My opinion is that today’s “climate science” is actually politicized pseudoscience - Lysenkoism.

Some of the features of pseudoscience:

  1. Claims that cannot be validated - such as global climate models making predictions of weather 100 years from now but can’t make a meaningful prediction of something near-term that can validate the models. “Climate” now has been defined as a 30-year running average, as if that will enable them to escape normal requirements of validation of computer models.
  2. Claims that can be tested, and turn out wrong, are just ignored or explained away with lame reasons.
  3. Skeptics are attacked ad-hominem by the so-called “scientists”
  4. Skeptics are also subject to organized suppression of their opinions
  5. Measurements central to the entire field are highly tortured calculations like “global average temperature.” These measurements are heavily adjusted which makes them vulnerable to manipulation by people who know what they want to see.
  6. Climate scientists show a unique lack of humility about what their models can and can’t do. They purport to show the effect of CO2 of global temperatures in an impossibly complex system, Earth’s atmosphere, the oceans and the land. They appear to think that they can quantify what will happen if CO2 goes from 0.39% to 0.4% in the air. I’ve even seen articles, written in all seriousness, purporting to predict things 1,000 years from now. In most fields, something like this would be a source of embarrassment.
  7. Mistakes always go in only one direction - exaggerated effects of CO2 on increasing temperatures. Honest science would show mistakes in both directions.
  8. The results of the climate predictions are used to justify all sorts of left wing programs.
  9. Argument from authority - signed statements by a bunch of authorities that these conclusions are proven beyond doubt.

I’m 99% convinced that the field of climate science will eventually become an embarrassment to science and it will be considered in the same area of academia as ethnic studies. They’ll never be able to validate their models or their claims.


The Rabbit Hole
#2

Because they can’t. The majority of climate scientists will tell u that there is no evidence of man made climate change. The climate has, is and will always change. Mainstream media paints a picture that all climate scientist are saying that man is changing the climate and that man can slow or reverse it due to a large part of donations and funding for their phony research on the subject by the renewable energy industry complex. Climate change is real but the cause that is portrayed is a hoax.


#3

Don’t really care about the climate models, but pollution is generally bad so we should try to have less of it.


#4

…and we do. Much of the effort goes unnoticed by the general public as the understanding of chemical scrubbers is foreign to most people.

Industries that produce toxic or polluting emissions often take the initiative in removing those that are harmful to the environment. This is one reason that Chemical Engineers are among the highest paid among engineers.

The efforts made in the United States are higher than in countries like China and India.

Even with that, there are industrial sites in the US where caution is thrown to the wind by the profit motive. Greed is part of human nature.


#5

Rather one-sided in that analysis though. Consumerism is customer driven, not supplier driven. Americans want boundless supplies of cheap everything delivered to their door for free. Techo-optimism will not change or even constrain the need for a cultural change that doesn’t rely on unnecessary resource depletion . This s not something that can be done by proxy by pushing it off on the government or industry. People have to learn to down-scale their life-styles if they want to really address the issues, but few will, even the loudest climate alarmists.


#6

While you are correct, I wouldn’t blame it all on the consumer… The bully pulpit is none to slow about telling people to ‘go out and shop’. When a nations governance is driven by GDP rather than the rather simple job of adjudicating disputes and keeping out the bad guys, churn is everything. Tax receipts are the end all for a government engaged in wealth distribution… and keeping the people happy for government run retirement plans… Government and the FED work tirelessly to create credit and consumerism… and we don’t seem to have leadership in Washington with the guts to tell us to save for a rainy day.


#7

I was addressing only one facet of pollution control…that taken voluntarily by many industries that utilize polluting processes.

It adds to their cost and to the price of their goods, but they do not ignore these costs in favor of profit.

Personal pollution is a whole different issue. With the average America polluter, “out of sight, out of mind” is the driving force.

Me, I don’t pollute. I don’t even flip cigarette butts out of the car window…even though I smoke non-filtered cigarettes and everything in it is biodegradable. Many people don’t realize that birds and other animals can eat filters and die.

I never throw trash in the lakes or rivers I visit…even if I know it would sink.

However, there’s nothing I can do about my personal CO2 or methane emissions.


#8

If I’m out on the water fresh or salt, and I see trash floating, I pick it up. It angers me to know end when I see people throw their fast food trash out their car window or drop their trash on the ground. Or when people tell me that they pour their used motor oil in the ground. Makes me want to slap them in the back of the head. No we shouldn’t carelessly pollute but the EPA has certainly gotten out of control for saving a fucking newt…our fires here in Cali are getting out of control partly because the EPA “along with Brown’s cronie ass” would rather let our fresh water go straight to the bay instead of building more dams for watersheds because it might raise the salitity too high in the bay for a fish that no one eats.


#9

#10

Thank you. I find it quite revealing that Little Al Gore refused to debate his esteemed mentor.


#11

Global warming and EPA have been used by the left to control populations, reduce production, kill ingenuity. Kill people


#12

Meanwhile Maersk the worlds largest container ship company will now begin sailing through the arctic circle to cut many days time off the Atlantic to Pacific shipping route.Made possible by the faxct that the Arctic Circle is no longer frozen solid be six feet thick sheets of ice.But I guess you right wing scientists prefer to think that’s just shit luck instead of acknowledging global warming???


#13

Lol global warming haha


#14


#15

Hurricane Lane went came just off the shore of Hawaii. We knew it would because science predicted it would.

When you an infection you go to the doctor for help. That’s because the scientific research on the body allows them to treat you.

When the US military wants to implement new technology in track nuclear activity, they pair military expert with quantum mechanic scientists.

But when 90%-97% of scientists say climate change is real and humans are the primary cause of it, select people think science is just nonsense.

I will never understand how otherwise intelligent people can have such an inaccurate view on how the world works.


#16

If you liberals cared about global warming you would stop turning America into a 3 rd world country. Honestly stop pretending you care about race and earth, you try to control the environment so you can control what it’s people can do.


#17

Where is ur proof for those stats?


#18

Did ya click on the article?


#19

:neutral_face:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-15/97-percent-consensus-on-climate-change-it-s-complicated


#20

National Review, a conservative editorial magazine

And the Frazier Institute, a conservative/libertarian think tank.

Very scientific. How about we take a page from politicians and let the science speak for itself.