Pepe's Climate Thread

Post Reply New Topic

It could have been a scientific theory by some nobody that gradually manifested. It was once 'global cooling' we were meant to be worried about. Then global warming, but when the predictions missed terribly it turned into "climate change" where you can't go wrong. Any kind of weather can be put down to the general population and we can all pay more taxes. I've given you plenty of names that are involved in this scam.

But it isn't. It's a scientific theory developed by hundreds of scientists over the course of 150 years, using as a starting point the discovery of infrared light in 1790 and spectral absorption lines in the 1810s. These scientists are not nobodies. John Tyndall's work made it possible for the Wright brothers to try flying in higher altitudes. Svante Arrhenius's work is all over the place. G.S. Callendar is the reason the Allies won the Battle of Britain.

And if it's a hoax, one of these people was the hoaxer. It should take under 10 minutes to figure out who. And nobody ever does.

You're not even responding to my posts.

The main point is that the IPCC's solutions don't solve anything. They just mean we all pay more money for an unproven theory.

My point is that you are calling it a hoax, even though you can't even name the person you're slandering.

Specific individuals did the groundwork behind the discovery that CO2 warms the earth.
Specific individuals are being slandered by those who call it a hoax.

Evidently, there are some less sophisticated sceptics, lacking ethical integrity, who do just that.

However,
There are man-made-climate-change "Truth deniers" who do the same thing.

The following is pretty basic:
Not "all people are created equally" in terms of intellectual integrity, acuity/acumen and not all people have a great deal of emotional discipline.
To suggest there is a binary in regards to those involving themselves in the climate change mass-debate is clearly Reductio ad absurdum.

I personally don't believe just any "truths".
The "truths" I am interested in are the ones which have validity and are not fabricated to serve a narrative.
I was young and dumb too at one stage,
But,
I don't believe in everything/k that comes my way these days now that I have considerable life experience under my belt.



I'd be surprised if any non-citizen pretend scientists (I.E. actual climate scientists) give any credence to XR.

The implied premise of your statement seems to be that "scientists" never lie,
And that people in positions of power are never corrupt.
If so, I dispute that assumption/assertion/promulgation absolutely/emphatically.


Not at all.
That is a rather binary position to take.
Rather, in my eyes, it is one consideration which may explain the apparent "fudging" of statistics.

Some see a connection between the man-made-climate-change issue and socialistic machinations.
I am keeping an open mind.

BTW, The 97% consensus figure is questionable when drilled into.
This seems to be another case of presenting a "truth" that has been *created* to support a narrative, based on what I have researched.
I am open-minded on this at this stage, being the perpetual sceptic that I am.

I am no expert in socialist/communist politics but I think it fair to say that wealth distribution is a major focus involving leftwing politics.
I think this is a given.

The information outlets I use and trust to a significant degree have indicated that leftwing groups have admitted directly and indirectly that the climate change question suits their leftwing agenda.


Once again you are providing a binary.
Apparently there is significant "verballing" of what scientists are saying and reporting.
No, I see no evidence of total collusion.

However,
Peter Ridd is a good example of someone who defies the easiest path to take.
I believe he has openly stated that certain modes of political thinking are viewed more favourably than others,
And "diversity of thought" is actively and vigorously discouraged as can be seen in his court case with James Cook University in Australia.

This has been covered many times by many people in many areas.
Even those participating in government-funded grants, or are vying to attain one, have openly admitted the advantages of favouring a certain political leaning.

Incidentally, this sycophantic behaviour can be seen in the education system.
Providing a paper which is sympathetic to the viewpoint of some academics/teachers can/have produced better grades.

This very basic stuff and is in the social mainstream.
I would find it hard to believe that many people are unaware of how the system works.
I am sure you have come across this sort of conversation.

In conclusion:

Scepticism is not a dirty word.
"Don't you believe what you've seen and you've heard.
But perhaps "ego" is,
With its ability to corrupt the Truth through emotional needs.

Scientific methodology is integral/dependant on scepticism,
And those who would deny the employment of critical thinking are servicing something other than the quest for: "Truth, justice and all that stuff."

Freedom of speech and freedom of thought in a community is the hallmark of an individualistic society and the absence of this is indicative of a groupthink embracing collectivist social paradigm.

"Truth" is something not to be feared.
It is something to be respected and embraced.

And, finally: Down with "Truth deniers"!
Vive la liberté and diversity of thought!

Critical thinking isn't about giving credence to things just because they go against mainstream thinking. Critical thinking is about evaluating a position, looking at its strengths and weaknesses, the evidence that supports it, any evidence that contradicts it, and the strengths and weaknesses of other positions.

Obviously not everyone who believes in climate change has engaged in good-quality critical thinking on the subject. However, everyone who has engaged in good-quality critical thinking on the subject believes in climate change.

People who don't believe in climate change are very rarely "sceptics", because that implies a level of engagement with the evidence that they have not attempted. They don't read scientific publications. They don't read the work of climate scientists. They don't check whether the things they have been told are true. They don't look for evidence that contradicts their beliefs, and they don't evaluate the evidence that supports their beliefs. Scepticism isn't about being contrary and treating all views as equally valid, it is about rigour, empiricism, and integrity, and above all else a dogged determination to get at the truth.

In the climate debate, the question isn't "is the world warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?". There is a huge amount of evidence that it is, and no good reason to think that it isn't. The questions are questions of degree. The true climate change sceptics are people who accept that the world is getting hotter due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but disagree on what this means for rainfall patterns in the Sahel, or extreme weather events in the Pacific region, or the gulf stream. They're the people researching methane emissions from reservoirs, or the impact of warmer winters upon migratory birds, or the ratios of oxygen isotopes in ice cores. They're the people advancing the discussion and looking to learn more about the world. They're the people who comprehensively research a topic before adding their findings to it, and can explain how their findings fit with the wider body of research. In other words, they're the experts.

I'm sure the brainwashed children playing in the streets while they should be at school are great critical thinkers. I'm sure the imbeciles pouring fake blood over buildings are great critical thinkers. I'm sure the guy lying under a fake hearse crying like a maniac is a great critical thinker.

To be clear,
I never suggested that it was.


We are in agreement.


Incorrect.
I think you have just provided an "Own Goal" with that comment.
You are absolutely in no position to make such an assertion,
And your usage of the term "good-quality" is simply subjective.


By your custom made definition perhaps, but not the way I use it:
I am a sceptic in the sense that I am sceptical about human motives.
I doubt the opinions of people who are incapable, or are not inclined to use critical thinking.
I doubt people who embrace groupthink to service their emotional needs.
I am inclined to "question" rather than blindly accept what is said, particularly in a political context,
And I am very aware of the perversion of truth/the-facts through the principle of: "Lies, damn lies and statistics."

You are aware that not everyone has "integrity"?
You are aware that there are "quality" (your word, not mine) critical thinkers who disagree with what is being said in regards to mankind being totally responsible for climate change?
Are you also aware of the principle of employing "Useful Idiots" to attain a goal?


I beg your pardon?
Are you applying this definition of scepticism to me?
I have a sceptical attitude rather than a defensive one.
I.E. "Give me a better answer and I will listen."
I have said a number of times I can't see why mankind can't be affecting the climate.
But I have also mentioned that I am not a catastrophist.
I am interested in the Truth, no matter where it may lie.
I am not defending an anti-man-made-climate-change position
You may be projecting your mindset onto me. <shrug>



Why are you telling me this?
This has no relevance to my position.

It should also be about open discussion but it isn't since the advocates demand that "the science is proven" which it simply is not.



In your mind, and a very arrogant position, may I add?
Denying the Truth that there are "quality" critical thinkers who disagree with your point of view does you little credit.



"In other words, they're the experts.", you say.
So you dispute the position regarding the infamous 97% figure.
I hope you don't consider the "citizen scientists" as "experts".
Have you investigated the claim?
Have you any evidence that only bonafide climate scientists where involved?
Could you provide some if you do?
And can you verify that the evidence is bonafide rather than a "Truth" created to serve a narrative?

You see,
I am a true sceptic when it comes to a humanity which embraces corruption so easily.

BTW, you also had a closed mind when it came to historic revisionism.

They critically damage their cause by their virtue signalling,
But they lack the intelligence/wisdom to realise what they are doing.

This does not say that Climate change is not happening. No, it is saying that there may be a small reduction of temperatures that will give some extra time to do something, while making it super clear that it will do little to actually compensate human made climate change, and can be expected the reverse is likely to happen in the future where instead of being colder it will be the other direction. If anything it is a warning not to be too surprised by world temperatures not being as high in a future period, but not be mistaken that climate change is not happening, and if course is not corrected things could get much worse.

Damn,
Snap out of it!
I'm *not* a climate change "denier".

Do you actually think I didn't appreciate the significance of the section I posted and you re-quoted? <sigh>
I posted the entire section, erm, in its entirety for a reason.
I am spreading lies and deception.
Hang on, that isn't right.
Ah, yes,
I meant to say, I am disseminating information, which is what I do.

"Truth Seeker" ----> Moi.

You have a fixation on me that is scary.
What do I have to do or say to get you off my butt!

<kiss kiss>

Then actually give your takeaway from an article rather than simply post it. Remember what I said about what I have seen of you simply linking something rather than saying what you think it means, like are afraid? How am I meant to know what you are saying when you just paste someone's words and then respond after someone says something about it? This is a Politics, Philosophy and Religion section of a forum, not a link random news articles that you find interesting.

Look, I am not meaning to come across as aggressive and attacking you. I am sure that you like to think of yourself as a big thinker that finds the truth of a matter. But above you just post articles, one being about the economic requirements of clean energy in resources, which as far as I know you want to bring it up to show clean energy as economically infeasible. And an article about forecasts of possible drop in global temperatures, which as far as I know is you saying there is evidence against global warming, like it is equitable to climate change.

Not like it is your only source, but sometimes you link the foulest news sources like Breitbart, and take it as a good take on something like a hit piece against a climate activist. I have difficulty making heads of what you post because it feels like you default so often to saying you are joking, you make it seem ridiculous that someone saw you in such a critical way and just appoint yourself the title of truth seeker. It isn't like I am humorous, I am one of the most sarcastic people I know, but half the time I don't know whether you have a conservative or progressive point of view.

Sorry if my posts have felt like harassment. I did not take well when you "agreed" with me that I was a dumb kid in my late 20s, defaulting that you must be right. I will discuss views after I know what your point is on them.

Erm,
No.

So we understand each other:
"You have been weighed,
You have been measured,
And you have been found wanting.
Welcome to the new world."

https://youtu.be/Py-97WfTLTw

Editorial (if I may):

The "progressive"/Labor opposition leader of Australia:
Is he embracing common sense,
Is he being pragmatic,
Is he engaging in politics,
Or is it a bit of all of the above?

Personally speaking (if I may),
I am impressed.