Climate Change denial vs History

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Mar 10, 2017.

  1. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not to forget the kindergarten-level interpretation of Popper.
     
  2. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,786
    Likes Received:
    8,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing but insults and name calling. That's the alarmist MO.
     
  3. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,786
    Likes Received:
    8,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing but insults and name calling. That's the alarmist MO.
     
  4. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What point? What used to be called Global Warming is now called 'Climate Change'.....Do you deny that? If so, you need to support it instead of hurling invective statements.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2017
  5. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,786
    Likes Received:
    8,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the alarmist game plan. Challenge their faith and they name call. Karl Popper would be laughing.
     
    Robert likes this.
  6. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Climate is longer range weather. Here are major problems with Global warming. It is a buzz word more than a genuine problem.

    And believe me, they use models to show this. Models that are not proven accurate.

    What if politics was managed using flawed models?

    Come to think of it, the model having Clinton as president was a gross failure. But had she got sworn in due to the model, we would have her now.

    Flaws in models is it all depends on where the model lands. If it lands in Africa for instance, what does this do for us in Siberia? Or Australia. They are so vague that I doubt any poster realizes what areas the models cover and will be troubled to ask themselves, ... say, is today what was predicted back when?

    Say a model in 2010 predicted enormous heating. But we have very slight heating, why rely on that model?

    Next item. Climate is extremely variable. A look at planet earth from satellites shows the rapid movement to and fro by clouds. They appear to first race quickly east only to do a you turn and reverse westward. What can you make of this?

    Clouds are the fathers of storms. Why do they race two and fro with no particular place to go?

    Trying to average temperatures globally is like trying to kiss your mother in law expecting that kiss to mimic your own wife.

    It might sound as if it makes sense, but look at google earth. Watch the patterns. They are rambling all over the place. Not eligible to be averaged.

    For instance, you drive from your home, and on the way you stay inside the speed limit. And you drive half an hour to the nearest major freeway. Tell me the good of average speed? What can you make use of it for? If you blow off the doors on the freeway, your average speed escalates quite rapidly. But so what? If you get stuck on the freeway, down goes the average. It really is for amusement.
     
  7. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes the warmmongers tell us that if it is HOT it's global warming but if it's cold it's weather. I have heard that countless times here on the Form from AGW believers. I understand that climate is long range however, the term is being bastardized by the AGW religion for the very reason it is a vague description. It is meant to do nothing more than generate more tax revenue for government, fanny sitting 'environmental' bureaucrats that actually make law without congressional involvement.
     
  8. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, precisely. It is pure politics. Scientists of many stripes accept it as man made. Others do not agree. Then there are ranges between those. Then will it harm us? Wide ranges are there as well, From heck yes to absolutely not.

    But turn it into politics and things appear to firm up for democrats that we are on the way to disaster to most of the rest of us who think next day, week or year, it will wobble back to no problem at all.
     
  9. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Koch Brothers funds many universities. About 308 and not any oil firms. Koch is much maligned by Lisa Graves whom is a hard core Democrat (left winger) Naturally she does not say bad things about the left wingers.
     
  10. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,786
    Likes Received:
    8,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They also recently donated $25M to the United Negro College Fund.
     
  11. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok. I don't "malign" them. I don't need to. They do nothing illegal. They donate to universities in order to influence them. They buy politicians who legislate in favor of their business... which is not illegal thanks to "Citizen's United". And they own oil companies, pipeline companies, and many businesses that contribute to Global Warming and other environmental threats.

    Again: I don't need to "malign" them. They are just doing their "thing". it just so happens that their "thing" as billionaires, is conflict with my "thing" as middle class.

    I do have an issue with the politicians they buy, with the universities that supply the "quo" to their "quid", and with my fellow citizens who excuse this behavior and do not educate themselves enough to realize the fact that it's hurting them too.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2017
  12. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely! They are two different things. Related, but different. You need to educate yourself before you make such claims! And that was my point.

    Uhmm no I don't! You made the claim. I only denied that your claim had any validity. So you need to support it. Why would I close the opportunity you just opened for yourself to actually learn something?

    Google won't bite!

    And you should also not be afraid to go to pages other than the Science denier's talking points pages. Real Science doesn't bite either....
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2017
  13. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,786
    Likes Received:
    8,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think we have Koch Derangement Syndrome on full display. ^^ "Denialism" is the result of the Koch Bros and Citizen's United. Popper is laughing.
     
  14. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Amazing huh? A man is rich and gives money away. Still he gets battered by Democrats. What is amazing is the left has plenty of it's own billionaires yet those escape scrutiny. I believe the government has far more power, many more resources to hurt me. And when they are not directly hurting me, vis a vis laws, they hurt others. I believe if they were still in power, Koch could expect special laws aimed at them yet do not touch the rich the Democrats so covet. Believe this, they covet the rich since without them, they can't afford to run for office.
     
  15. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one denies the climate changes! Have you read the OP?


    Yes you only denied.....you didn't explain why AGW believers call those that don't believe in AGW 'Climate Change Deniers'....Who denies that the Earth's climate changes? YOU need to support your statements. BTW no one 'denies science' either. Do you understand how vague 'climate change' and 'science denier' are? Try to be specific about your claims. Stop telling others to do your research for you. Logic won't bite!!!
     
  16. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey doesn't. They don't... just "give money away". They expect something in return.

    I find it naive to think that they "just give money away"...

    And they give money away, and they expect something in return.

    The issue is not giving "money away:. It's how what they look for affects us.

    Oh yeah! And in the next few years, Trump is going to prove just how much the government can hurt you.

    They would love to have them. I mean, money can buy a political office. But the most effective thing that money does is use propaganda to twist a good policy and make it look bad, or a bad policy to make it look good. That wouldn't work so well for most Democrats. Because Democrats tend to be more analytical than Republicans (and Independents, for that matter)
     
  17. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do Republicans make that statement over and over thinking that it gets them off the hook for opposing legislation to deal with it?

    If you don't deny that the Climate is Changing, but you deny that we should do something about it. What's the difference?

    Not really.... Those who deny AGW are outright "science deniers". Which shouldn't be taken as an insult. It's just a description of somebody who denies that the Scientific Method works.

    Climate Change deniers are those who might or might not deny AGW, but deny that we should do something about its effects on Global Climate. Also not an insult. Just a description.

    Ok. Let's do the basics. The concept behind Climate Change is not that Earth's climate changes.

    I will be happy to support anything I say. I will not, however, educate you on the scientific evidence. That will be up to you. I can point you to it and tell you were to find it. But I won't do your homework for you.

    So I'll be happy to answer any question you wish to post (when I can). And I will also be happy to clarify any epistemological issues about Science (how it works in general, and in particular). But you would need to find information on your own on the basic science, if you're interested in that. The statement you made above "nobody denies that Earth's climate changes" could indicate that first you might want to look into the basics of what what people are referring to when you hear "Climate Change"
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2017
    Bowerbird likes this.
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whom do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about? Judith Curry?
     
  19. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,786
    Likes Received:
    8,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's just completely ridiculous - and from the champion of the scientific method via the teachings of Popper and Kuhn. Democrats tend to be more analytical ?? Please let us in on how that conclusion was developed. Also the D's spent much more on the 2016 election than the R's did. Doesn't do much good when the economic message is 8 more years of Obamanomics.
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would they be on the hook?
    One is factually correct, the other is an opinion about public policy.
    False and despicable fabrication.
    It is meant as one, with no purpose but propaganda.
    Flat false. A person who understands how the scientific method works understands that science progresses by proving the majority of respected scientists wrong. That is going to happen with AGW nonscience. Take it to the bank.
    It's not a description. It is a lie. That is the point. The real climate change deniers are the people who deny that climate change, which has always been natural in the past, could be natural now.
    So it is an inaccurate and deliberately deceitful term. Right.
    IOW, you can't support your claims.
    That should be amusing, given the woeful epistemological incompetence you demonstrated above.
    Oh, we know what they are referring to. And we know why they are not using an accurate term for it.
     
  21. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,786
    Likes Received:
    8,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The difference is that implementing policies limiting the use of fossil fuels does more harm than good. Additionally that harm is regressive negatively affecting the poor. That is the difference between a rational assessment of global warming vs. an alarmist assessment which says that any modification to the environment is harmful and must be eliminated.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  22. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No talking about people on this forum who pull twaddle out of thier arses. Unsubstantiated claims i.e. That scientists thought CO2 caused cooling :roll:

    Scientists like Curry have to abide the rules of the field - which is 1) declare your interests i.e. Open disclosure 2) If you have a theory support it with research and facts and 3) don't try to use public support as a substitute for peer review

    Where has Curry adhered to any of the above
     
  23. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Deflection - all of a sudden it is all about Obama
     
  24. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Really? And of course you know more about that than say, Nicholas Stern or Ross Garnaut??
     
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I certainly understand it better.
     

Share This Page