There is a large elephant in the room...

Post Reply New Topic

Here we go again.

I gave some theoretical examples of what the "painful" solutions might be.

Please give me some examples of what believe to be real solutions. Later today I'll re-read my post where I asked for details on the kinds of solutions any of you think would solve the problem of climate change because perhaps the post was unintelligible?

There's several problems with telling the public, "GO FIND THE DATA YOURSELF".
1. It's evasive, and it causes "red flags and alarm bells" to go off in people's mind.

Yet when scientists interpret the data for you, you don't believe them.
You can't have it both ways. Either you trust the scientists or you go find the data and analyse it yourself.

There's no measurement data in the links you cited, only very limited statistical data.

Global warming scientists admit they hide their data. I heard one say "we don't want the public to misunderstand", or maybe they don't want their critics to "have ammunition" to use against them. If they published their data, then skeptics could go out and verify the data.

Regardless, Global Warming scientists are like Bernie Madoff ("I can't show you my data, but look at my charts").

There was an interesting video I watched on this topic on Independent Man's page back in July of 2017 called 'Coming out as a Lukewarmer on Climate Change' where he addresses his disagreements with both climate-change apocalypse prophets and wholesale climate change deniers. One could try saying that he's just showing a central tendency bias which doesn't count as actually grappling with the data and he included an excerpt from a guy called potholer54 who does his best to wring the politics out of the topic and keep it to brass tacks.

Among a lot of useful information in the video he made the CO2 comparison only, held it up against the planetary temperature graph and - no match. He then held up increased heat from the sun over 500 million years - again, no match. Multiply the two together, ie. solar output and CO2 levels, you get a much more convincing match.



Unless someone has scientific journal articles falsifying the claim that CO2 traps reflected heat and that scientists now know they were doing that simple laboratory experiment all wrong it sounds like the fundamental principle - ie. that heightened CO2 retains heat - stays intact. If we know that it's multivariate, ie. that there are several causes, that just means there are several causes. To say that one cause on its own isn't causing the whole thing is both entirely correct in isolation and utterly misleading if we're asked to follow that up with some notion that because it's not the whole phenomena then it's having no effect. The later sounds a bit like gender wage gap logic.

When that happens, the whole world will go to pot—revert back to the days when alchemy was seen as the cutting-edge science. And “bleeding” was seen as the cure-all for disease.

I don’t believe in the politicalization of climate change...but it is evident that this is occurring. What I wonder about is its causation.

Man-made, or normal geological variation.

Honest taxpayers absolutely can "have it both ways", because what it means is that they're sick of being robbed, regardless of what those supported with the robbery do. The only truly acceptable thing for publicly funded scientists to do is to cease to exist.

I think the cause of the politicisation of climate change is probably man made because geological variation doesn't normally politise anything.

That's ridiculous, we need freaking science....

I am no scientist myself but I trust freaking scientists, they do all the studies and experiments

to make sure we don't all kill ourselves or put excessive toxins into the planet and such...they are trying to help us live.

Who in their right mind is like 'f**k scientists ahhh they don't know what they're talking about, screw science." well apparently our current GOP but who can say they are in their right minds?

I like science, too. In fact, I've always wanted to be a scientist. But this is no excuse to shove science down the throats of people who reject it and prefer their own irrational worldviews; and much less to force them to pay others to do science they don't want. I don't know if science has much of a chance to survive without governments robbing their peoples to fund it, but if it can't, it has no moral right to exist, period, regardless of how much we'd miss it.

Yes they should be forced to pay and contribue to society's advancement because they live in a society and are part of it. We are even too kind to them, we should make them pay an extra as a form of taxation of their stupidity and their tendency to make other sane people suffer it. Otherwise go live in a cave and stop annoying us all.

Don't want to contribute to society, go live in the woods and eat bugs.

I fail to see how forcing anarchy on people is somehow more "free" than taxation. Most sane people have no interest in existing in chaos.

I don't intend to force anarchy on them, they can go and establish a flat Earth community in the desert and out of my sight, for all I care.

Or do you mean that they want to force anarchy on us?