Kiteforum.com

tegirinenashi wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:47 pm

Pemba wrote:... Suposedly 97 % (well a high percentage anyway) of scientists believes in global warming, but you know better. Another bulshit detector, or if not how do you decide what to believe ?...

Speaking in kiting terms, your timing is off. This is not the best time to claim scientific authority over the issue. Witness the beer story making this week headlines. Tell me it is not a Barley Science.

Let's examine their research. They fixed dozens (if not hundreds) of beer growing variables, except one: temperature. There is nothing wrong with it, that is what scientists routinely do in order to distill the dependency on individual factors. However, how much prediction power their model (experiment, whatever) has? Zero, because numerous other beer growing variables are more significant than temperature.

No, I'm not claiming scientific authority at all. I hadn't heard about the beer story and haven't looked it up but I don't doubt that it is very possible that that research was a joke, and that there might be lots of other published research that is nonsense as well. My argument is that if a large majority of scientists claim that we are headed for destruction, it is wise to listen and act, especially if acting is easy. Unless you can prove that they are wrong. But that's not happening in this thread at all. You guys might be right and there is no such thing as global warming but if the world bases their acting on your opinion and you turn out to be wrong then we're all in big trouble. Maybe it's naive to go along with what the majority of scientists believe, but there are countless examples in life of this. So I asked, how do you choose which side to believe, why do you believe what a minority of scientists believe ? What are your arguments that there is no global warming ? Can you evaluate the scientific research that has been done and if so, have you done that and do you find it irrelevant (like the beer research) ? Obviously M&M can't and I can't either.

For me to justify not doing anything, you'd have to prove that there is no global warming. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion and I agree that there are some in the believers camp that appear to consider themselves superior in their majority opinion, but in ridiculing that opinion, you appear to be inclined the same way.

Pemba wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:14 am

large majority of scientists

Oops, my bad

Red flag # 5
"97% scientists agree" study, is a fraud, made to create a taking point, and is it ever working. We got to do something? We spent 40 billion with nothing to show for, and now they are asking 2.4 trillion to start..... How naive are you? I got a parcel on a moon, interested? I will take 5% off, just for you.

You're correct, it's not 97%, it's more like 99% as those few contrarians were older and some have died recently. Others have left academia so that they are now able to be paid by lobby groups to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

SimonP wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:31 am

it's more like 99%

The Hockey S(ch)tick Micheal (Con)Man and activists, please spare me.

Russia probe boomerang

China is funding us green groups to harm our national security.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/1 ... probe.html

Save the oceans – stop recycling plastic



If the EU is serious about its war against marine pollution it should consider banning the export of plastic waste rather than banning plastic straws.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/sav ... plastic-2/

Well the EU, or anywhere else as far as I can see, can't be serious in it's war against plastic. I don't know anything about it really, but banning would be fine with me. Alternatively I don't see why they can't just charge the consumer the actual cost for the recycling of many plastic things. So what if the price of coca cola in a plastic bottle goes up by whatever percentage, you can buy it in glass bottles if you really need it. You can say the same about many plastic things. Banning plastic straws doesn't even deserve to be mentioned, it can only be irrelevant in the big picture.

Surprising. But I think "fine particulate matter" is too general, the air in the sahara is at least three times as polluted as anywhere in the US (60 - 70 mg/m3 compared to 0-20 mg/m3) or Europe ? Still interesting though.

Bullshit is now "torqued up language" according to Gore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti ... T-x-j1FeSQ

Then there is this guy writing from his modest green home in Bethesda, MD, NYTimes columnist TomFriedman writes today that (your) CO2 emissions must be slashed immediately.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/opin ... enate.html