Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Some days, you just have to ask yourself,
"How long will the MMGW Scam continue, before people get embarrassed enough to change their tune?"

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years | Real Science

But like Religion, once you believe, it is hard to admit what you believed in was wrong.

Heathen!

[sailorboy1]

True Believers accept on faith. Everyone else is just an Infidel!

[SV THIRD DAY]

I prefer the term "Heretic Rich" myself...where to I get a Heretic Bumper Sticker?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Here's the big problem: in order for all these various and sundry arguments against the consensus towards AGW to amount to a logical conclusion, you first have to somehow accept that the overwhelming number (90%+) of climate scientists would willfully suppress their ability, training, professionalism and instincts to go along with something that they know hasn't been adequately investigated and proven. And that all of their own professional and scientific institutions are in on the con. As well as the other scientists and their professional and scientific associations who have reviewed the finding and judged them to have been arrived-at using proper scientific procedures and reasoning.

That's patently irrational. I haven't found any argument or combination from the anti-AGW camp that can make it past this point.

From the link below:

“If you can find me a single academic who hasn’t had to ******** or bluff or lie or embellish in order to get grants, then I will find you an academic who is in trouble with [their] head of department,” said one professor in Australia.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...esearch-grants

Perhaps your point is not valid.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by fryewe

From the link below:


https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...esearch-grants

Perhaps your point is not valid.

You only need to wade through a random sampling of climate change papers to notice patterns that suggests this is what happens. Most usually apparent is the data cherry picking and the tendency to either brush over or not even consider alternative theories (and sometimes even hard cold facts) for effects attributed to climate change.

Personally, I very much doubt few are going to apply for a grant on anything to do with climate change without a preconceived notion of what they expect the final conclusions will be.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

So the new game begins.
Use the FBI and DOJ to try and Prosecute "Climate Change Deniers"
US Attorney General: 'We May Prosecute Climate Change Deniers'.


Mark Levin gives a great talk about this threat:
https://www.levintv.com/videos/levintv-episode-4

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

From the link below:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...esearch-grants

Perhaps your point is not valid.

Just about everyone, in every walk of life, has had to "sell" themselves and kiss a little ass to just get along, let alone manage their career.

This is not the same as being bad at your job (ie doing bad science), and a far cry from the assertions that just about all of the field of climate science is spineless, incompetent, corrupt, and/or a willing partner in some green soshulist conspiracy.

My point remains very valid; deniers/skeptics have the burden of credibly proving that the vast majority of specialists, the best in the field, have got it wrong or are trying to con us.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

So the new game begins.
Use the FBI and DOJ to try and Prosecute "Climate Change Deniers"
US Attorney General: 'We May Prosecute Climate Change Deniers'.


Mark Levin gives a great talk about this threat:
https://www.levintv.com/videos/levintv-episode-4

Toe the Party Line else you'll be shipped to Oregon..

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Just about everyone, in every walk of life, has had to "sell" themselves and kiss a little ass to just get along, let alone manage their career.

That's the same rationale the liars who are doing the studies use to convince themselves that their actions aren't repugnant. After all, everybody does it. Perhaps among your co-horts.

This is not the same as being bad at your job (ie doing bad science), and a far cry from the assertions that just about all of the field of climate science is spineless, incompetent, corrupt, and/or a willing partner in some green soshulist conspiracy.

It's exactly the same thing, because science is the search for truth, and by their actions they show that they don't care about the truth...only that they get their funding and burnish their "credentials." And your exaggeration of the "assertions" by skeptics is just a *****-shield for having to address the facts...that the study shows that many who study the climate do so knowing that their studies are faulty. That you can't accept that is your problem.

My point remains very valid; deniers/skeptics have the burden of credibly proving that the vast majority of specialists, the best in the field, have got it wrong or are trying to con us.

This report credibly proves that many of these "specialists" ARE simply white collar con men. Your "vast majority" is just another veiled reference to the failed assertion that 99 44/100ths of climate scientists are flame throwing Manniacs.

Flimsy, L-E, even by your standards.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

That's the same rationale the liars who are doing the studies use to convince themselves that their actions aren't repugnant. After all, everybody does it. Perhaps among your co-horts.

It's exactly the same thing, because science is the search for truth, and by their actions they show that they don't care about the truth...only that they get their funding and burnish their "credentials." And your exaggeration of the "assertions" by skeptics is just a *****-shield for having to address the facts

...the study shows that many who study the climate do so knowing that their studies are faulty. That you can't accept that is your problem.

Flimsy, L-E, even by your standards.

"the liars"..."by their actions they show that they don't care about the truth...only that they get their funding and burnish their "credentials."

Right. All of climate science is rotten; only your fave cut'n'paste skeptic site has The Truth.

For bonus points, tell us why most Western democratic governments are acknowledging the issue of AGW.


You really don't understand science, the scientific process, or the people in it.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Just about everyone, in every walk of life, has had to "sell" themselves and kiss a little ass to just get along, let alone manage their career.

This is not the same as being bad at your job (ie doing bad science), and a far cry from the assertions that just about all of the field of climate science is spineless, incompetent, corrupt, and/or a willing partner in some green soshulist conspiracy.

My point remains very valid; deniers/skeptics have the burden of credibly proving that the vast majority of specialists, the best in the field, have got it wrong or are trying to con us.

I'm sorry you feel that way about ass kissing. That may be true in the business world or in your life experience, but I know lots of fields, mostly technical or highly skilled workers where "selling yourself" or ass kissing isn't part of the program at all as long as you are competent in your field. Your long record of competence and reliability does all the "selling" that's needed. For example, do you think that "Third Day" has built his business by kissing ass and selling himself by telling people what they wanted to hear or even taking care to exhibit his lovable personality, or do you suppose that he took the trouble to learn WAY more than most other folks about his subject and products so people in need of his expertise seek him out because it's in their own self interest to do so, and they very willingly do it with the very clear understanding that he will be doing NO ass kissing under any circumstances at all, no matter what?!

No, of course there is no green soshulist conspiracy among scientists but there certainly IS among politicians who don't even begin to have the ability to understand the science so have to decide on which side they will support based on other "considerations," such as what will get them reelected or satisfy the lobbyists funding their campaigns. I believe that many of these politicians are sincere in their beliefs and mean well because who can oppose cutting back on pollution wherever possible, but their actual understanding of science is less than the average sophomore in high school and yet they are making supposedly science based policy that affects billions of lives! The "conspiracy" among scientists is an unintentional one because it's politicians and politically and financially powerful institutions who hold all the power which determines who gets grants or funding or tenure and who doesn't. What honest climate scientist could expect to get a grant if he were to come out and say that "with all the extremely confusing and interrelated and complicated factors involved in determining very small changes in temp over long periods of time and the incredible complexity of our planets (and universes) ebb and flow of energy, it's way too early to definitively draw any conclusions or make any recommendations concerning AGW (or cattle methane caused global warming/cooling or volcano ash caused global warming/cooling or solar flare caused global warming/cooling, etc.) except to say they all might exist and all interact with each other in ways we are just beginning to understand, and he certainly couldn't explain all of this complexity in detail with any confidence, so much more study is needed?" Exxon wouldn't pay him to say that and neither would any pro-AGW entity but it's pretty much what the climate scientists SHOULD be saying at this stage of studying the issue. So, most "climate scientists" have become "climate change scientists" because they don't want to be called nasty names or even risk being bullied or prosecuted (yikes) so there just isn't much of a market for scientists who simply want to study an extremely, extremely complex system until they truly understand it and can explain it in detail before publishing any conclusions, but in every other field of science, that is exactly how it's done. "Peer reviewed" means less than nothing when almost all the "peers" are on the same payroll and all are using similarly corrupted data.

We all need to take a step WAY back and let climate scientists (not climate change scientists) study the flow of energy that involves our planet, and if/when they can tell our politicians with some certainty just what is going on and how our existence and civilization has an impact on it, THEN we should take appropriate action. But I suspect that day will be well after any of our lifetimes. In the meantime, we should all just do what we can reasonably do to pollute as little as possible while going about our normal lives, and not spend any time whatsoever actually worrying or being alarmed about something none of us really understand.

[Lake-Effect]

I'm sorry you feel that way about ass kissing. That may be true in the business world or in your life experience, but I know lots of fields, mostly technical or highly skilled workers where "selling yourself" or ass kissing isn't part of the program at all as long as you are competent in your field. Your long record of competence and reliability does all the "selling" that's needed. For example, do you think that "Third Day" has built his business by kissing ass and selling himself by telling people what they wanted to hear or even taking care to exhibit his lovable personality, or do you suppose that he took the trouble to learn WAY more than most other folks about his subject and products so people in need of his expertise seek him out because it's in their own self interest to do so, and they very willingly do it with the very clear understanding that he will be doing NO ass kissing under any circumstances at all, no matter what?!

(derail - maybe saying "ass kissing" is a bit extreme, but virtually EVERYBODY is 'selling' at some level, at some time. Socially and otherwise. And we're all newbies at first. It's as simple as just biting your tongue once in a while. I'm certain even Rich would acknowledge that he has and still 'sells' to some extent when necessary. Ditto for scientists. Doesn't invalidate their work.)

No, of course there is no green soshulist conspiracy among scientists but there certainly IS among politicians who don't even begin to have the ability to understand the science so have to decide on which side they will support based on other "considerations," such as what will get them reelected or satisfy the lobbyists funding their campaigns. I believe that many of these politicians are sincere in their beliefs and mean well because who can oppose cutting back on pollution wherever possible, but their actual understanding of science is less than the average sophomore in high school and yet they are making supposedly science based policy that affects billions of lives!

Ah. You mean like THIS guy?

The "conspiracy" among scientists is an unintentional one because it's politicians and politically and financially powerful institutions who hold all the power which determines who gets grants or funding or tenure and who doesn't. What honest climate scientist could expect to get a grant if he were to come out and say that "with all the extremely confusing and interrelated and complicated factors involved in determining very small changes in temp over long periods of time and the incredible complexity of our planets (and universes) ebb and flow of energy, it's way too early to definitively draw any conclusions or make any recommendations concerning AGW (or cattle methane caused global warming/cooling or volcano ash caused global warming/cooling or solar flare caused global warming/cooling, etc.) except to say they all might exist and all interact with each other in ways we are just beginning to understand, and he certainly couldn't explain all of this complexity in detail with any confidence, so much more study is needed?" Exxon wouldn't pay him to say that and neither would any pro-AGW entity but it's pretty much what the climate scientists SHOULD be saying at this stage of studying the issue. So, most "climate scientists" have become "climate change scientists" because they don't want to be called nasty names or even risk being bullied or prosecuted (yikes) so there just isn't much of a market for scientists who simply want to study an extremely, extremely complex system until they truly understand it and can explain it in detail before publishing any conclusions, but in every other field of science, that is exactly how it's done. "Peer reviewed" means less than nothing when almost all the "peers" are on the same payroll and all are using similarly corrupted data.

With respect, what are your qualifications that make your condemnation of the climate science field worthy of serious consideration? Especially considering that scientists and scientific organizations from both within and outside of the field have not found such flaws?

We all need to take a step WAY back and let climate scientists (not climate change scientists) study the flow of energy that involves our planet, and if/when they can tell our politicians with some certainty just what is going on and how our existence and civilization has an impact on it, THEN we should take appropriate action.

Quite alot of the climate scientists think that there's already enough evidence to do just that. I think it would be better to at least engage with the best information we have, rather than to try to armchair-scientist it away with conspiracy theories or unproven speculations about careerism and group-think.

[sailorboy1]

I find it interesting that supporters what to insist that everyone accept their science, but also insist that non-supporters science is wrong.

[DeepFrz]

I find it interesting that supporters what to insist that everyone accept their science, but also insist that non-supporters science is wrong.

Is that because the deniers have no science to back them up?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...are_btn_fb#_=_

[Reefmagnet]

Nah. It's because just about most predicted climate Armageddon's have - surprise, surprise - failed to deliver. Last time I conducted high school science, observations trumped assumptions. Maybe that has something to do with it?

But I can imagine the current El Nino conditions are music to the ears of warmistas. Even though they've been shooting down 1998 for the last 17 years.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app