Reasons why Toby should delete Climate Change Threads

[drsurf]

More absurdity. Delusion builds upon delusion. So the sun is weaker 4 billion years ago, but evidence doesn't align so they compensate with greenhouse gases and that then confirms the alarmism with current climate theories. At the heart of it all is the preposterous notion you can know what happened exactly 4 billion years ago and also what is then and now the composition of the sun in entirety. I must say at some point do you not wonder if you are in a cult because it is all very far fetched. Science is great when it is dealing with what it can observe and test outside that it has proven incredibly unreliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox


All it takes is a misunderstanding in atomic decay and the whole thing is turned on it's head. Let alone getting into the laws of physics possibly not being static. The time scales to be certain on these things are beyond human comprehension. You even get stuck in the present at the quantum and there is no precision at all just probabilities. At the smallest scale we can only guess a range, at the longest time scales we can only estimate based that everything has continued as it is now back till then and of ultimate consequence is what we can predict into the future, the past appears to have no effect on us ( spin on that one).

If you want to be turning society upside down because you think the world is going to end, don't you think it would be wise just to be a little more certain about your predictions? Especially that given time those predictions have proven unreliable.

If you don't understand the example that Venus is representing you shouldn't be displaying your ignorance so publicly.

Setting up straw men

Pot kettle black that is what you just did there. The Venus example is meant to be look wow how hot venus is, wow look at all that CO2. CO2 is obviously responsible for all that heat. But hey ignore the 93X thicker blanket, heater on 2X and stuck rotisserie thats burning the chicken on one side. Let me guess we get our observations of the temperature from that burnt side too? :-O super smart science people! Oh wait we did believe that but then we actually sent something there and oh shit things were just a little different than expected https://www.iflscience.com/space/death- ... ot-so-hot/ but don't you worry we know how old the universe is and whats at the center of the sun! 100% certain on those facts. Lucky you can't send a probe into the sun or back in time phew! Wouldn't want to get caught "DISPLAYING MY IGNORANCE SO PUBLICLY!" wow that would be embarrassing. Now I am off to go do some Gender studies and after that some Economics, wouldn't want to get caught as the wrong gender during the next economic melt down. Imagine that a science "Economics" that's completely human constructed and it can't even predict itself. Imagine if we had sciences that I don't know tried to predict non man made things. Hey maybe that's why they can't predict man made climate change because it's man made! f*** that makes sense now!

If your insecurity about your beliefs angers you so much and devolves into witless sarcasm, skip the Gender Studies and Economics and get some Counselling. I believe it could really help your mental wellbeing. Take care

[foilholio]

Seems like we need a new thread about why we need to delete this thread...

Ah yes the paradox is complete thank Miss Drsurf.

[Kamikuza]

And consensus=belief

You had a really close look at the Cook papers the "97% consensus" is based on...?

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/0 ... agree.html

This guy did and his conclusion was "1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming". My quick glance at the(?) paper shows that 97% is a huge misrepresentation of the data. Misrepresenting data seems to be a problem, especially with climate science, but not solely.

Cook has done at least one other paper (with higher than 97% this time ) and the co-authors have done others, and ask together they run the skeptical science website.

The methodology of that original study makes me laugh too. As does the authors of the papers Cook assessed stating things like “that isn’t what my paper concludes.”

[grigorib]

Cui bono?

[foilholio]

Una gran senorita

The problem clearly a majority of the population will just fall in line to this type of reasoning. Throw an amount of authority especially large enough and it is too much for most people to resist. On the science side I understand the concern. If the sun was cooler and GW gases were attributed the effects for a warmer planet we could be headed for some real trouble. There is just too many things though to even downplay that scenario. We in reality have not increased CO2 much and it is looking likely carbon mining will come to a demise as electrification and autonomy come to superior price recognition. There is absolutely no way any radical policies limiting carbon will be accepted especially by china and india. The only way carbon will be limited is by either a war or and innovation, both actually highly likely.

Me my stance quite radical, like going with foil kites for so long, is more CO2 will benefit the life of the planet, we will come off carbon for cheaper technologies and then at some point maybe far in the future more carbon will be mined purely to raise CO2 levels more to extract more benefit. But then hey I also believe in aliens

[Pemba]

And consensus=belief

You had a really close look at the Cook papers the "97% consensus" is based on...?

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/0 ... agree.html

This guy did and his conclusion was "1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming". My quick glance at the(?) paper shows that 97% is a huge misrepresentation of the data. Misrepresenting data seems to be a problem, especially with climate science, but not solely.

This guy seems equally stupid. The assumption is made that those who didn’t quantify AGW don’t think that humans are the main cause. You can’t just fit those that didn’t quantify it anywhere it suits you (namely in the category of < 50% = humans are not the main cause).

[MaximumAC]

Pepe meme = instant disqualification

[Matteo V]

Pepe meme = instant disqualification

Yes, it is now bigotry to "send in the clowns". Cant wait to see what's next!

[grigorib]

Where some see a problem others see an opportunity. I’d practically wonder what positive changes global warming cycle brings. It was global warming when Europe bloomed in Renaissance. It was global warming when Vikings travelled to Greenland by sea. There are going’s to be positive things. Why don’t we talk about those?

[MaximumAC]

Pepe meme = instant disqualification

Yes, it is now bigotry to "send in the clowns". Cant wait to see what's next!

Bigotry? Absurd to meme-ify this debate in general. Glad you all feel comfortable calling each other clowns and searching for the lowest common denominator.