Climate Activist Greta

That seems to be problematic then, for your argument. If, as you suggest, we use science, then the science doesn't support the argument you make. So, which competing position should we agree to then? use science? or only when it is convenient to your argument? Those seem to be the choices you're offering here.

So, smart people are, in fact, studying the climate. They freely admit that they don't know the answers, so why do you seem capable of expressing something that they both don't, and are unwilling to do?

 

You presented it?

 

I listed multiple people, and by extension all of the little lemmings that follow.

 

So, here is what the smart people think.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/defaul...ts-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
http://opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

Are we going to listen to them or not? They don't have the 'proof' that you want, nor do they have the proof that blowing up a bridge won't save the universe. But the conclusion drawn from the preponderance of evidence is that agw is real, harmful, etc.

 

Says the guy who is "convinced" because Mann refused to release any of his data.

He chose to lose the court case over releasing his data so that his findings could be reconstructed by Ball.

Mann is a garbage "scientist".

 

Or is that statement designed to promote hysterics?

 

Yes, computer models are how we "predict" the weather. And the farther out the model predicts, the less likely they are to be accurate. We know this. Which means, the certainty that we might wish when producing policy isn't available to us, which means that relying these models to execute actual policy is stupid, in the extreme. And thanks for granting me all those Exxon shares. My accountant will be by momentarily to receive them from you.

I would hazard you this outcome. All of our children will die. All of them. Does that give you pause? From a moral perspective, if you knowingly bring them into the world, knowing that they all have to, at some point, die, did you do them a disservice by having them in the first place? Or is your argument more that you think that you should be able to determine the fashion from which they die? If I look at the two options here, neither is what I would consider to be intellectual, or valid. You assert that those children would die from famine, or hurricanes, etc. And yet, folks, today, are less likely to die from either than at any point in our species history. So the evidence doesn't seem to back your worries. And frankly, I find that typical of those who would vest themselves in the orthodoxy of the AGW experience than rely on rational natural observation. But hey, you can practice whatever mysticism you wish, thankfully, that right hasn't been abolished in our nation yet..

 

I apologize if I missed that list of names. I only saw you name AOC. Which post # did you list the multiple people?

 

No. I'm not suggesting that there's some scary thing imminent in the future unless you do exactly what I say. And what I saved invariably involves forking over every penny you can.

What does strikes me as almost identical to televangelism.

 

You responded to it you don't read what your response to? Why would I type it again?

 

You only named one person. No other Dem has said the world will end in 9 yrs.

 

You are just suggesting that addressing the problem involves forking over every penny you can. And maybe some apocalyptic communist deep state takeover of your entire life?

 

That's a lie. brother if you didn't bother me to read it the first time why would you read it the second time?

 

AOC is the named person in the post I replied to. No lie

 

No I'm suggesting the problem is imaginary imaginary. And it's promoted by one political faction for multiple reasons. first because the ultimate enemy bad guy is it work to the climate change is people in the petroleum industry. People in the petroleum industry fund the Democrats opposition.

and it's uncanny is that the party that wants to steal everyone's wealth to redistribute it to their voters is the one that wants to steal everyone's money to redistribute it to their voters.

 

You failed to read. I can't do anything about that.

 

Yeah I don't even know what you mean.

 

Hmm.. ok, here we go...

First article. Naomi (the writer of the article) talks about scientific consensus. First rule of science is that it demonstrates a result, not a consensus. More, the studies that she refers to, from the citation from the IPCC have generally been refuted for their ridiculous methodology errors but should you wish to further have this resurrected, we can.

Second article.. links to a 404 error, page not found...

Third article.... again, a consensus study, only correlating the inference that a study does, in fact, support the AGW narrative.

Fourth Article. The Cook study... From the abstract...
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

So, if you read that, correctly, you see that two thirds of the papers express no opinion on their position. So, of those that do, less than a third then contributed to this consensus that you're based the foundation of your argument on.

Fifth article is a list. Nothing is asserted from the presentation of the list.

I mean, I get why folks, like you, are impressed. These folks have spent real time trying to cover for the fact that their models aren't replicable, or otherwise testable. They understand that like any other software, the basic assumptions of it influence the outcomes of their models, and that they simply aren't comfortable expressing an opinion based on the fragility of their methods that derived their findings. Similarly, the utter lack of actual peer review certainty here is likely just as damning from the legitimacy perspective as not.

So, I ask again, show us the work. Not the study that tells you about the consensus of it. You might be more successful, but I doubt it.

 

Well give it a shot. It's a pretty simple issue.

Instead of bloviating just answer the question, as a member of the party of science.

 

Did I? AOC is the only one named.

 

There are words after that.

If you fail to understand them I can't be obliged to explain it to you.

 

So, lets skip over the amateur deconstruction of scientific studies you have no qualifications in.
Lets just go with the last link.
http://opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
That is a list of the smart people studying the issue. They all hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
On the other side is your political belief.... Which to choose which to choose... such a conundrum.

 

[

Look at the OP, I cited a commercial

this one

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/dzO9/allstate-500-year-storm-featuring-dennis-haysbert

 

You base that conclusion on nothing, I base my conclusion on the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Interesting that the conclusion you draw is that essentially the entire global scientific community is complicit in the biggest conspiracy of all time in order to weaken one American political party. And, you didn't draw the conclusion that the tiny fraction of people denying the consensus and are funded by the petroleum industry are lying and sinking massive money into political campaigns to protect their profits.

 

But no actual names. You only NAMED one person. Unless you're going to tell me 'Democratic candidates for president' is someone's name. Who specifically other than AOC made such a statement?