Big Coal Predicted Climate Change...In 1966

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Lesh, Nov 24, 2019.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The standard is the evidence of reality: does the definition cleanly separate the objects of interest from everything else, and are they functionally equivalent in the relevant respects?
    Peer review is a useful tool, as long as reviewers are competent to understand what they are reviewing.
    No, it is the indisputable fact that climate has always changed, and we can't stop it from changing.
    Of course they are. It's merely anti-fossil-fuel hate propagandists who pretend that those who dissent from anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda deny what everyone learned in third grade. This is a quite deliberate and calculated fallacy, smear tactic and propaganda trick.
    We can't. Actual physical events are always the final authority.
    But that's how we learned to build bridges that don't.

    GET IT???
    https://phys.org/news/2018-07-beware-scientific-studiesmost-wrong.html
    I've seen enough junk science myself.
    They are based on actual physical events, not just peer review.
     
  2. Etbauer

    Etbauer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    4,646
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, the reality is that as we pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, the globe is warming.
    If they weren’t competent, then it wouldn’t be peer review. While on the other hand, the stories about how it’s not happening are almost all done by people who aren’t competent.
    Yes, it’s always changed. Experts know that and people making this argument know they know it. It’s entirely meant to waste time. And, just in case someone is so ignorant that they really need it explained to them: The problem isn’t that it’s changing, it’s the magnitude and rate of change that’s the problem. But I can’t imagine anybody honestly doesn’t understand that, so this argument is meant to waste time.
    This is probably the most glaring place where this whole thing falls apart.

    Step 1) For some inexplicable reason, base your whole life on hating fossil fuels.
    Step 2) Gain total complete domination of one particular area of science across the globe… somehow? Do this with no way of making money from it, while ignoring any other area of study.
    Step 3) Continue for 40 years even though you have produced no change in actual policy.
    Step 4) ?????
    Step 5) Profit.

    Lol, it’s the worst conspiracy ever devised by mankind. There is no way in which it makes sense other than just assuming a pure evil conspiracy exists for the sake of itself.
    Ok, the physical events are that the climate is changing because of our input.
    No lol, it isn’t. Maybe 1,000 years ago, but even then, we had some principles of engineering. We build bridges and airplanes and drugs using peer reviewed science. We use physics, and geology, biology, aerodynamics, hydrology etc etc etc. If that were all just based on whatever political story scientists wanted to be true, we would still be stuck in the iron age.
    So, if you notice, this is all about nutrition. First of all, we never learn that any of this science is wrong because some political hack with no education on the subject wrote a book on it. We learn through more peer reviewed science. Second, as pointed out, we keep going back and forth on this stuff. There are many reasons nutrition is hard, and that’s why there isn’t a strong consensus. By contrast, climate change has been known and backed by all lines of evidence for 40 years, and keeps getting stronger. They don’t go back and forth, and the consensus is near unanimous.
    Not just peer review, but never without it. Medicine is a good example. When you use peer reviewed science, you get chemotherapy, vaccines, insulin, etc. In other words, things that work. Without it, you get crystal healing, faith healing, goop, and countless other nonsense quack sciences. They all have countless books written about them, and countless adherents who have ‘seen enough junk science.’ The biggest difference is one uses peer review and real experts doing real science, and therefore works. The other doesn’t, often criticizes real science, and of course doesn’t work. No matter how good the story is, if the science doesn’t back it up, it doesn’t work.
     
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Blatant post-hoc fallacy, as well as question begging.
    Hehe. There are peers and "peers."
    It only takes one who is competent.
    No, it is meant to smear and deceive.
    No, because the magnitude and rate of change are entirely in line with half a dozen previous century-scale Holocene warming episodes.
    I didn't say it was sincere.
    The money is coming from somewhere.
    False. Obviously. A few people have made a lot of money from anti-fossil-fuel policies like cap-and-trade.
    It is in the nature of secret conspiracies that we don't necessarily know their motives. I could hazard some guesses, but that's about it.
    No, the physical events are that climate is changing much as it has done every thousand years or so since the last Ice Age, and there is no convincing evidence that human input is the dominant cause.
    Yes, it is.
    Google "Tacoma Narrows bridge" and start reading.
    And experience.
    But climate is different, because all we can do is observe it.
    That's utter nonsense.
    But not the "consensus" that CO2 controls the earth's temperature.
    <yawn> Google Semmelweiss and start reading.
    And the diabetes epidemic, etc.
    No, the biggest difference is that one is consistent with ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS and the others aren't.
    No, if ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS don't back it up, it doesn't work.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  4. Etbauer

    Etbauer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    4,646
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol, of course it is, except for every possible way it could possibly be nonsense. As I have told many denialists from flat earthers to anti-nuclear activists, just stamping your feet and saying something doesn't make it real.
    A peer reviewed study published in a reputable journal is experts, fact checked and reviewed by experts. That's what peer review means.
    No lol, it really really doesn't. It takes many.
    This I can somewhat agree with.
    https://xkcd.com/1732/
    A cartoon, that's true, but it's based on the actual data.
    Be it lizard people, illuminati or any other conspiracy theory, they mostly exist in the imagination. The ones that are real, make sense. This one doesn't make any sense. There is no real money or significant motivation to keep a conspiracy of this scale going on for this long at this magnitude. Conversely, there is almost nothing on the planet worth more money than causing climate change.
    So, in the end, nearly all physical evidence shows that man is causing unprecedented climate change. IE, the ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS. Remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event that one of the great disasters in the history of earth was caused by tiny tiny bacteria emitting gas into the atmosphere. They didn't 'control' the climate however. A mountain lion doesn't 'control' my circulatory system, but it can sure have a gigantic effect on it.

    In the end, peer review can be wrong, science can be wrong. But everything else is essentially ALWAYS wrong. And science has never been THIS wrong before. Sure, science can give us a tacoma narrows, or 737 max. The alternative however, gives us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goop_Lab and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer's_water_fuel_cell.
     
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, that also describes pal review.
    No it isn't.
    No? The price of oil is quite sensitive to demand. China and India could save hundreds of billions of dollars a year on oil imports by reducing global demand through anti-fossil-fuel hysteria. That's just one possibility. The USA regards certain oil-exporting countries as strategic annoyances: Russia, Iran, Venezuela, etc. It has every motive to want to reduce their oil revenues. A billion dollars and CIA pressure easily buys control of a niche field like climate science. Money well spent.
    But if people aren't causing climate change, then lots of other possibilities open up.
    No, nearly all physical evidence says the opposite: that recent climate change is in line with previous Holocene warmings, and man had little to do with it..
    No, the actual physical events prove me right: there is no climate crisis, no climate emergency, and no credible empirical evidence indicating that one is imminent.
     
  6. Etbauer

    Etbauer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    4,646
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you don't really know what peer review is do you? A 'peer' has nothing to do with friendship, it has to with level of expertise. So, the alternative to peer review is that somethign is verified by nobody or people who have no idea what they are actually talking about.
    So, the definition of a 'conspiracy theory' is a 'theory' (ie not in the scientific sense) is that they are completely nonsensical and have zero evidence of any kind. Your theory, ancient aliens, lizard people, illuminati, flat earth, are all exactly identical. but to address these particular fantasies:

    China owns the largest oil company on the planet. Also, there's no connection to china. Also, it's not just china, it's the scientific community in EVERY country in the world. The difficulties presented by oil producing countries is first of all an argument that we should be ridding ourselves of oil dependencies even if global warming weren't a real thing. That being said, we could make the same argument that communism would make everyone's life a paradise, but communist countries present a difficulty for us, so therefore any problems with communism are just a cia plot to discredit it. The arguments are identical. The cia and a billion dollars can do a little bit (ignoring where that billion $ came from). However, the cia isn't all that good. Moreover, a billion dollars is great, but it's powerless against a trillion.

    We can sit here and come up with possibilities for anything. Is autism caused by aliens? Are the chinese actually nazis who traveled through time? Nothing is too stupid. Or, we can look at actual evidence.
    I don't know why, but it always amazes me how much people think that just stamping their feet can change reality. That just saying something can discount the actual evidence even though they can provide none to the contrary.

    Let me ask you something, do you believe the earth is flat? If not, why not?
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No it doesn't. It is determined by the journal editor, who knows who can be relied on to have the politically correct view.
    Not being a pal of the author does not mean you don't know what you are talking about. Often quite the contrary.
    That's just some $#!+ you made up.
    Which imports more oil than any other company on the planet. Hello?
    You assume, but without evidence.
    Nope. It's a few political organizations claiming to speak for scientists, but not actually consulting them.
    Why?
    No they aren't.
    But nobody's giving a trillion.
    Right. And mine will be plausible while yours will be nonsensical:
    See?
    You won't.
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
    The actual empirical evidence agrees with me: there is no climate crisis, no climate emergency, and no imminent threat of one.
    The evidence says it's round. Like the evidence says there is no climate crisis, and never will be one caused by human CO2 emissions.
     

Share This Page