Global Warming Stop the Superstitious Nonsense

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Discotech

I don't know what the public policy solution should be. Doing nothing is fine if you are willing to lower the quality of life on the planet. There are trade-offs in every decision. All I'm saying is I am sick of the snow outside my door comment.

not that this matters, but the last thread that you commented on, the one that used that context, was satirical in the same context, hence the forum it was penned in.

but in other news, the weather in NC has been really nice this spring so far. (Not nearly as hot as in recent years)

Yeah, the other forum. I thought since people were making the idiotic comment, "Gee, it's nice outside". I thought I would make a rant about science versus superstitious non-sense. I tend to lean towards science as the only tool we have to clear our heads of idiotic notions.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Who said they were never wrong? Or is that just hyperbole?

97% consensus worldwide that global warming is a real issue. If you choose to think 97% of scientists are lying because the government wants to tax you then go for it, that doesn't change the fact that scientists don't decide policy. The scientists only provide the data, governments are what decide how that data is dealt with.

a reply to: Discotech

Just saying if they truly cared about climate change they should probably focus on the biggest issue instead of over sensationalize marginal ones.

Makes you wonder about agendas, agenda, agendas..

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The scientists get grants to carry on their work from the government though.

Pay to lie to make money from further research

Contrary to your anecdotal belief, smart people get paid no matter what they do.

a reply to: dfnj2015

And I am sick of the "OMG! It's 100. Therefore, it must be hotter than it ever has been before!" argument.

a reply to: Discotech

We're overpopulated, I don't think curbing our growth would be a bad thing personally. We're killing the planet, if not by CO2 then by cutting forests down and choking the ground underneath with concrete, pollution, etc.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Ok. You first.

Tired of this. Switch off your electricity, hand over your car keys, grow your own food, build your own wigwam and then lecture the rest of us.

Until then you climate cultists can can it.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Take that, add on top cars and fossil fuels, add in every coal mine in production and add whatever else you want that you think is causing climate change and it still pales in comparison to animal agriculture.

But no one mentions animal agriculture.. why do you think ???

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

Who said they were never wrong? Or is that just hyperbole?

97% consensus worldwide that global warming is a real issue. If you choose to think 97% of scientists are lying because the government wants to tax you then go for it, that doesn't change the fact that scientists don't decide policy. The scientists only provide the data, governments are what decide how that data is dealt with.

97% of climate scientists believe that it is an issue.

That's like saying 97% of VHS manufacturers believe that CD's are just a fad and won't last.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Skepticism is healthy, except when in comes to the authenticity and sincerity of scientists pushing an agenda where taxes are raised and government is over-reaching.
Good thing government and scientists are never wrong.

Scientist are not creating the public policy. Scientists are only reported the conclusions about the data. We can do nothing. The scientist do not care. Most of them are probably suicidal nihilists anyway. And the smart people get their research published probably could make just as much if not more money in other fields. The very definition of the scientific process is designed to eliminate bias. That's the whole point. Either you believe in superstition or you believe in science. Science is a process where bias is eliminated.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Discotech

I don't know what the public policy solution should be. Doing nothing is fine if you are willing to lower the quality of life on the planet. There are trade-offs in every decision. All I'm saying is I am sick of the snow outside my door comment.

not that this matters, but the last thread that you commented on, the one that used that context, was satirical in the same context, hence the forum it was penned in.

but in other news, the weather in NC has been really nice this spring so far. (Not nearly as hot as in recent years)

Yeah, the other forum. I thought since people were making the idiotic comment, "Gee, it's nice outside". I thought I would make a rant about science versus superstitious non-sense. I tend to lean towards science as the only tool we have to clear our heads of idiotic notions.

Sadly, those who tout intellectual superiority over this and other topics tend to drive others off long before they hear their information simply due to the tone and general attitude. Screaming at me that the science is settled and those with questions should be thrown in jail is not the way to project a meaningful dialog. This isn't directed at you of course, it's basically the driving force behind the rift we have between the left and the right as I see it. The overwhelming urge to smack the smug off the face of those who tout that attitude of insurmountable at times. Even if the smacker is dead wrong.

Very nice thread. Pleasure to read.

My question is, should we trust predictions made on data since 1880 or is the period of 127 years too short to produce valid data considering the length of time we've been having weather on our planet?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Superstition is what works for you. This is another case where something thinks their opinions are facts.

a reply to: dfnj2015

If you research something the government approves, they give you funding

If you research something the government doesn't approve, they won't give you funding

Good luck trying to get funding to research alternative reasons for Climate Change

We're not talking about people working in private sector research we're discussing the public sector research which is government funded...

Smart ass

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: dfnj2015

Ok. You first.

Tired of this. Switch off your electricity, hand over your car keys, grow your own food, build your own wigwam and then lecture the rest of us.

Until then you climate cultists can can it.

While this is a somewhat extremist point of view, it's very much how most feel when seeing those who feel they have riotous indignation to preach to the serfs about their bad ways, while all taking different planes to a climate conference in Paris, in the year 2017 when video conferencing isn't just a reality, it works dashingly.

The government says global warming is real, we take their word for it.
The government says 911 was terrorists, we don't believe that one.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: dfnj2015

If you research something the government approves, they give you funding

If you research something the government doesn't approve, they won't give you funding

Good luck trying to get funding to research alternative reasons for Climate Change

We're not talking about people working in private sector research we're discussing the public sector research which is government funded...

Smart ass

that guy was fired a few years ago.

a reply to: dfnj2015

How can the wealthy elite stop mother nature while they can't stop terrorists?

a reply to: dfnj2015

And science is never wrong, scientists are never biased?

Who's believing in superstition?

One of the problems here is that there aren't "thousands and thousands of scientists" at all. There are a few hundred at best. the rest of these "scientists" sign on to the issue out of camaraderie, not any meaningful participation in the studies themselves. Most of them have NOT been involved in ANY scientific study of the issues. they may have read articles in "Nature" or "New Scientists," and because of the reputation of the journals, decided they must be right in their conclusions. That's when you see claims like, "30,000 scientists agree and signed this here petition." That includes a whole lot of "experts" in things like String Theory, which has no relationship to Global Warming at all.

A second problem is the involvement of government in the scientific process. If the government holds the purse strings, you know what is going to happen. I have seen some of the "Grant Guidelines" put out by various government agencies. Once you get through the bureaucratic speak they say essentially this: "Prove Global Warming is man made and we'll give you this money." Now what's any scientist interested in tenure and self-promotion going to do? What is any graduate student attempting to make his mark and impress his professors going to do? The result is before you.

Third, you absolutely must study this issue rather than rely on reports from the Huffington Post and the Democratic Party. You need to read what those emails in Climategate actually said. SOME of this stuff can be attributed to sloppiness. It wasn't intentional. But SOME of it is out and out fraud, and if you look at the data and examine the graphs, you can see it. I'll just give one example:

Remember the phrase "Hide the decline"? It was big a few years ago. Well, what did this actually mean? Do you know already? It's more complex than you might figure at first glance. The scientists involved constructed a complex graph that showed several different sources which, they say, prove global warming. ALL these sources pointed to a temperature rise—except one. It showed a temperature DROP. So what did they do? They showed the line as it was about to drop, but as all the other lines went up, THIS line disappeared. It never came out again.

WHY did it not come out again? Because if they had shown it, it would have been an obvious anomaly as it headed further down, not up. And like a sore thumb, it would have stuck out there and people would have asked, “But what’s this line going down?” And the scientists would have to EXPLAIN what it was. But THIS is where it gets good!



The line wasn’t any old line. It was a line showing tree ring data from contemporary times. They drilled the trees, took core samples, and the tree rings said the temperature was declining, BUT all the hard core thermometers said the temperature was rising. Well, now which was right? The temperature gauges, of course. They were hard data and the tree ring data was PROXY data, the kind of data you use when you can’t use really accurate thermometers,

Like in the past. Like the past these scientists were comparing to the present to show the temperature was rising. Beginning to get the picture here? If the tree ring data in the PRESENT was obviously wrong, how can you use it to prove temperatures in the past? Is there any bona fide reason why they wouldn’t be wrong depicting the past as well? Hence they “hid the decline” so they would not have to answer awkward questions.

And they admitted it in their Climategate emails.

Now how much more information do you need before you admit this thing is fraught with fraud? How can you dismiss this incident? How can you trust anything they say?

Now if you really are interested in this farce, you might start with www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409964290&sr=1-1&keywords=hockey+sti ck+illusion and actually read of many similar instances. And you might read through some of those Climategate emails to get a sense of what these guys are doing to us.