climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[Strekke]

Do you have anything specific example in mind?

How about Epstein? There's a nice smack bang in your face one right there!

Actually that's a bad example, as obvious as it is it has yet to be proven. Some examples that have been... Catholic child abuse, Chernobyl, MK Ultra, Mockingbird, Watergate, Syphillis study, JFK, Yewtree/Saville, Snowden, Big tobacco, Tonkin, CIA drug running. I'm sure a quick google would reveal many many more.

Yes, that list includes some good examples. Especially how whistleblowers, like Snowden and Assange, are treated, is absolutely disgusting. They are exposing what's really going on.

Have you seen Adam Curtis' documentaries? You really should watch them if you haven't.

Bitter Lake:
Hypernormalization:

[foilholio]

Future risks posed by wildfires may be significantly reduced by limiting temperature increase to well below 2°C.

This is an absolutely absurd statement. It suggests that a mere 2C change in temperature is the cause of any and all risk associated to wild fires. As if wild fires never happened or posed a risk before. These people need their heads pulled from their asses.

AGW exists and has an effect on "fire weather"; taking measures to combat AGW is advised to reduce impact.

In absence of true fire management like California/Australia has failed to do, absolutely anything done to combat AGW will be useless to affect fires. And infact the reason to reduce fire management, so to combat AGW, is the true cause of worse fires. It is climate alarmism and not climate change that is causing the fires.

The article calls for faith in the scientific communities and the IPCC. How does that fit you guys' agenda?

Exactly, as in this is the new found faith of Climatism. Calls for faith are religious.

Weren't the scientists part of a big conspiracy, universities reduced to bought out shills/lobbyists, and the IPCC a total joke/waste of money that supports the Globalists/Leftists agenda for world domination?

I mean you can't help but strawman can you? This is more of an ivory tower syndrome type of thing where generation upon generation of academia has become indoctrinated slowly with more and more BS. Go read Karl Marx for god sake. The BS is crowding their thinking.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... -volcanoes

Climatism seems about making the most alarming and absurd claims.

skeptics/deniers

Why not just throw people that believe in AGW in with those that don't. Nothing disingenuous about that is there.

So which one is true, and which one is fake propaganda?

The one that is least true is likely the one with the most logical failings and ridiculous claims. Consult Al Gore for some reference to study.

Also, I still don't understand who would be behind scenario 2

Maybe the very people pushing climatism?

and who would be able to keep such a major conspiracy with so many people involved under wraps?

You are of the confusion it has to be in private. At this stage it's a bandwagon, high school dropouts are welcomed as leader.

Do you honestly believe in a Marxist Deep State trying to control the world?

You may have missed history. Maybe you should do some research. Some hints for you, USSR, China and Communism.

They called my sources that analyzed their sources biased/untrustworthy.

The main point I think you missed is you challenging the source and not the info.

We can keep going around in circles,

Only if you can't stick to a point.

, such as previous warming periods, but even that data is often spun to meet their argument. I have researched these arguments and have found sources pointing out that they are not applicable to today's GW

In what way are they not applicable? Because you would think logically if the rate of climate change was greater somewhat recently then alarm over the current slower rate is silly.

So as said before, anyone can find anything online, so we can all keep posting stuff to fit our agenda.

Not true. But you can prove me wrong by posting trumps alleged pee tapes.

The only real data to support the arguments would be to post entire studies and analyse them paragraph by paragraph, but as stated by Pemba, would be a lot of work just to win an online argument...

I think you would find to same degree that has been done. The question is what studies are valid? The only way to know for sure is to reproduce them. Otherwise you can use climatism's own materials against it. The IPCC reports for example with the wide variance and highly inaccurate models they have.

Another thing that really bothers me about the scepticts/deniers group is the constant referring to politics.

It's what annoys me about climatists, the continual sometimes masked push of political agendas that have no genuine connection to climate. It is as if climate is being used as a wedge.

Posting pro-Trump memes and accusing people of being Marxists/leftists solely based on this scientific discussion in my opinion proves that they have a political agenda of their own

?? I think you need the tinfoil hat or maybe a safe space.

the vast majority of scientists, that have dedicated their lives/careers researching this topic (unlike us), agree that AGW is real and is happening and that we should act ASAP. I trust the vast majority because they definitely have more expertise than us.

But so far their predictions have not been accurate. I did listen to them, but sadly on being let down with no global floods from the sea I lost faith. I have left climatism. I can see you are a strong proponent for the church but I feel certain you too will leave in time aswell.

personal experiences in the field / work / travels through the world have shown me that the climate is definitely changing fast, and is impacting us negatively, both on land and in water.

When you travel the climate can change fast. You see there is this thing called seasons and they are different for different parts of the world at different times. If you hop on a plane it can be winter in one place and summer in another. I know amazing right? Some very old science that, long before climatism or other religions came to the scene.

I guess I can understand your alarm now. I would be alarmed too if winter changed to summer over night. It's sad that the Climatist prey on the weak of mind and less informed though.

Lastly, innovative green/renewable technologies and moving away from polluting industries/fossil fuels is a good thing, both for our general health and the environment,

Except when it has negative economic results and also the pollution is just moved to some other country.

[Strekke]

Future risks posed by wildfires may be significantly reduced by limiting temperature increase to well below 2°C.

This is an absolutely absurd statement. It suggests that a mere 2C change in temperature is the cause of any and all risk associated to wild fires. As if wild fires never happened or posed a risk before. These people need their heads pulled from their asses.

AGW exists and has an effect on "fire weather"; taking measures to combat AGW is advised to reduce impact.

In absence of true fire management like California/Australia has failed to do, absolutely anything done to combat AGW will be useless to affect fires. And infact the reason to reduce fire management, so to combat AGW, is the true cause of worse fires. It is climate alarmism and not climate change that is causing the fires.

The article calls for faith in the scientific communities and the IPCC. How does that fit you guys' agenda?

Exactly, as in this is the new found faith of Climatism. Calls for faith are religious.

Weren't the scientists part of a big conspiracy, universities reduced to bought out shills/lobbyists, and the IPCC a total joke/waste of money that supports the Globalists/Leftists agenda for world domination?

I mean you can't help but strawman can you? This is more of an ivory tower syndrome type of thing where generation upon generation of academia has become indoctrinated slowly with more and more BS. Go read Karl Marx for god sake. The BS is crowding their thinking.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... -volcanoes

Climatism seems about making the most alarming and absurd claims.

skeptics/deniers

Why not just throw people that believe in AGW in with those that don't. Nothing disingenuous about that is there.

So which one is true, and which one is fake propaganda?

The one that is least true is likely the one with the most logical failings and ridiculous claims. Consult Al Gore for some reference to study.

Also, I still don't understand who would be behind scenario 2

Maybe the very people pushing climatism?

and who would be able to keep such a major conspiracy with so many people involved under wraps?

You are of the confusion it has to be in private. At this stage it's a bandwagon, high school dropouts are welcomed as leader.

Do you honestly believe in a Marxist Deep State trying to control the world?

You may have missed history. Maybe you should do some research. Some hints for you, USSR, China and Communism.

They called my sources that analyzed their sources biased/untrustworthy.

The main point I think you missed is you challenging the source and not the info.

We can keep going around in circles,

Only if you can't stick to a point.

, such as previous warming periods, but even that data is often spun to meet their argument. I have researched these arguments and have found sources pointing out that they are not applicable to today's GW

In what way are they not applicable? Because you would think logically if the rate of climate change was greater somewhat recently then alarm over the current slower rate is silly.

So as said before, anyone can find anything online, so we can all keep posting stuff to fit our agenda.

Not true. But you can prove me wrong by posting trumps alleged pee tapes.

The only real data to support the arguments would be to post entire studies and analyse them paragraph by paragraph, but as stated by Pemba, would be a lot of work just to win an online argument...

I think you would find to same degree that has been done. The question is what studies are valid? The only way to know for sure is to reproduce them. Otherwise you can use climatism's own materials against it. The IPCC reports for example with the wide variance and highly inaccurate models they have.

Another thing that really bothers me about the scepticts/deniers group is the constant referring to politics.

It's what annoys me about climatists, the continual sometimes masked push of political agendas that have no genuine connection to climate. It is as if climate is being used as a wedge.

Posting pro-Trump memes and accusing people of being Marxists/leftists solely based on this scientific discussion in my opinion proves that they have a political agenda of their own

?? I think you need the tinfoil hat or maybe a safe space.

the vast majority of scientists, that have dedicated their lives/careers researching this topic (unlike us), agree that AGW is real and is happening and that we should act ASAP. I trust the vast majority because they definitely have more expertise than us.

But so far their predictions have not been accurate. I did listen to them, but sadly on being let down with no global floods from the sea I lost faith. I have left climatism. I can see you are a strong proponent for the church but I feel certain you too will leave in time aswell.

personal experiences in the field / work / travels through the world have shown me that the climate is definitely changing fast, and is impacting us negatively, both on land and in water.

When you travel the climate can change fast. You see there is this thing called seasons and they are different for different parts of the world at different times. If you hop on a plane it can be winter in one place and summer in another. I know amazing right? Some very old science that, long before climatism or other religions came to the scene.

I guess I can understand your alarm now. I would be alarmed too if winter changed to summer over night. It's sad that the Climatist prey on the weak of mind and less informed though.

Lastly, innovative green/renewable technologies and moving away from polluting industries/fossil fuels is a good thing, both for our general health and the environment,

Except when it has negative economic results and also the pollution is just moved to some other country.

Don't try and make me look like a fool by insinuating I do not know how seasons work. I told you before part of my job is livelihoods and food security in developing countries, currently in Southern African region. The droughts, the floods, the cyclones are real, and are having a direct effect on people's lives. More intense, more frequent, bigger impact. Just as Al Gore and scientists predicted years ago btw. Once again, what is your first hand experience and expertise on the topic, apart from reading stuff online and watching youtube videos? You talk about "ivory tower" syndrome, and use it to completely disregard anything that is produced by experts. It's like going to a doctor who tells you you need a treatment, and then saying "nah this guy is brainwashed from being in the industry for too long I will take care of it myself by eating an apple", or going to a mechanic, ignoring their advice, and then trying to repair your own car with a fork and a spoon. Just because experts in a field are not always 100% correct, does not mean that people without any expertise at all are better placed to make a judgement/have more knowledge on the topic.

Regarding involving politics into the climate discussion: there are various posts of me saying I do not think politics should be involved in this discussion. Meanwhile, there are a ridiculous amount of posts of you starting about "Marxism"/"Leftists" etc. MM posted a pro-Trump Meme that had nothing to do with this topic on Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:31 pm, page 77 of the discussion ("Santa Claus Accused Of Quid Pro Quo For Giving Children Gifts In Exchange For Good Behaviour"). Yet I am the one politicizing this topic?

Have you watched Adam Curtis? It exposes some of the main powers driving modern history's main events/foreign policies/wars. Quite scary really how it all goes down. And I believe these same powers are involved in spreading doubt about AGW. You should really watch it, I think you will like it.

[marlboroughman]

"Marxism"

If you new what it was, you could see it. In Canada low income person i.e. senior is getting $154 Climate Action Incentive. For what? To buy a raincoat? On larger scale poor countries will get climate funding from "rich" countries. It's textbook Marxism. That's why the Pope likes it, I guess.

[foilholio]

Don't try and make me look like a fool by insinuating I do not know how seasons work.

Dude I am strawmanning you, it is obvious that is not what you intended. Like if I start calling you a racist because you are in Africa.

The droughts, the floods, the cyclones are real, and are having a direct effect on people's lives. More intense, more frequent, bigger impact.

How do you know this? What is the cause? What has been the pattern of these over the last 500000 years? 300 years? 100 years? satellites data for those periods? Any more alarming events in those time scales?

Is it possible that with the increasing population of Africa that that could be the cause for more effect from these?

See the problem is you have little to no data and a real lack to the quality of the data to gauge whether or not these events are changing. And as well you are miscorrelating causation.

Once again, what is your first hand experience

Well I do travel as well... I haven't seen any much changes to warrant any alarm. There is huge effects that the population is having on the planet other than CO2. I have noticed a significant increase in plant cover which I would suspect is from CO2. Man can be very negative to the environment but we can also be very positive, I think when we look back we will see CO2 as being positive. You only have to look at cold climates vs warm climates to gauge which is better. A warmer atmosphere will carry more water. More CO2 makes plants more efficient with water and grow much faster. I think that with over 800ppm we could highly likely see the greening of most of the planet. Humans can aid this by introducting species to non native areas, and genetic engineering. Humans can also help things like corals and other species adapt by moving some of them. Naturalism, nativism and other antihuman thought processes will ultimately see the planet in a worse state and especially humans.

You talk about "ivory tower" syndrome, and use it to completely disregard anything that is produced by experts.

Um no, please please stop strawmanning me. How am I disregarding all experts all the time? I will look at what an expert says, compare it with other experts or data, look for logical inconsistencies, biases particularly political and come to my own opinion. I know Al Gore is not an expert, but he would seek to represent them. I believed Al Gore but time bore out that his credibility was gone. There just seems no reason to be alarmed over CO2. Now don't get me wrong there IS plenty other things to be alarmed over. Like population, pollution, politics. You know economic disaster and world war 3 are both staring us down the barrel. I tell you if WW3 hits the last thing on your mind will be climate change. You should be wondering why is it you didn't do more about reducing nuclear weapons. I tell you the single issue we should be focusing on is eliminating them. Other than a large object from space hitting us they are the only credible threat to civilization.

It's like going to a doctor who tells you you need a treatment, and then saying "nah this guy is brainwashed from being in the industry for too long I will take care of it myself by eating an apple", or going to a mechanic, ignoring their advice, and then trying to repair your own car with a fork and a spoon.

Doctors are surprisingly lacking knowledge in many many areas of medicine and biology. I would never take the advice of a Doctor for something serious solely on his own words, I would consult literature and also other doctors and experts, medical scientists for example. Nutrition is something doctors often completely miss.

Your analogy is borderline more strawmanning too.

Just because experts in a field are not always 100% correct, does not mean that people without any expertise at all are better placed to make a judgement/have more knowledge on the topic.

No they are not always 100% right. You don't need expertise in a field to look for logical flaws or inconsistencies between fields or experts. Just experience in analyzing data. Something most any should develop in life, some more than others though. Anyone can become an expert though, anointed titles from academia are fast loosing value and in many cases for a long time now have had negative value. I wouldn't employ anyone with say any courses in gender or like much of industry now any person who has had time "working" for government.

Regarding involving politics into the climate discussion: there are various posts of me saying I do not think politics should be involved in this discussion. Meanwhile, there are a ridiculous amount of posts of you starting about "Marxism"/"Leftists" etc

Because you display marxist ideology.

MM posted a pro-Trump Meme that had nothing to do with this topic on Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:31 pm, page 77 of the discussion ("Santa Claus Accused Of Quid Pro Quo For Giving Children Gifts In Exchange For Good Behaviour").

Thanks I had a look at it. So? what is the problem? One post? MM is obviously just trying to trigger the left. You are obviously left. You got triggered. Maybe your should stop trying to trigger others? Or find the nearest safe space. Might involve leaving Africa though

Have you watched Adam Curtis? It exposes some of the main powers driving modern history's main events/foreign policies/wars.

I will. Thanks.

And I believe these same powers are involved in spreading doubt about AGW.

I have no doubt they are. I have arrived at my own opinion on things though. I am 100% in support of green/better tech and think companies like Tesla are awesome.

You should really watch it, I think you will like it.

I will watch it.

[Matteo V]

It seems easy to find support for just about any point of view so how do you choose what to believe ? To have an informed opinion takes more work than I expect most are prepared to do.

An informed opinion about string theory is impossible to formulate because String Theory cannot be proven. Some of the guesses as to what it would actually take to prove string theory center around a LHC type particle collider the diameter of our galaxy.

Almost everyone lives in a world where there are only two choices - True and False. But it seems even nature does not have that two choice paradigm at its root. There is a third choice, which is that the answer is unknown, or in the case of AGW, the system itself is unknown.

And while science does not lack the concept of the unknown, unknowable, or indeterminate, it seems that the general voting population of democracies does not have the capacity to handle that concept.

To those of us that can see this, we also understand that this is the most easily exploited flaw of the voting public.

[SimonP]

The climate is governed by a well understood series of equations. They are deterministic and not quantum. You keep trying to invoke 'god of the gaps' arguments but the gaps are far smaller than you realise. The uncertainty is over the values of some parameters and coefficients. Observation matches prediction. There are nonlinear tipping points which makes the precautionary principle even more important.
100% of climate scientists believe that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that is good enough evidence for me.

[marlboroughman]

100% of climate scientists believe that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that is good enough evidence for me.

True, and the latest stream of papers is showing 1 deg C temp rise per doubling of CO2 (proven in real time), which is not only good enough for me, but I am also totally cool with it.

[Matteo V]

The climate is governed by a well understood series of equations. They are deterministic and not quantum.

If your first statement is true, then could you direct me to a climate model that produces repeatable results?

And yes I'm sure that you can have some simplistic and overall useless in application, equations that produce repeatable results. But does that translate to what actually happens in the climate? Or rather, have there been any predictions that have come true to a reasonable degree of accuracy?



Please understand that my example reference to string theory, is that we cannot actually understand it without experimental data which is out of reach of our current capabilities. This is synonymous with our understanding of the climate.

Again, feel very much free to correct me with hard evidence on this if I'm wrong. But our current position on climate understanding is that every time we figure out that there is a new variable that needs to be included, we realize there are two more variables that we need to discover.

[Matteo V]

Just as Al Gore and scientists predicted years ago btw.

Hey Eminem, any chance that there is a YouTube video montage of Al Gore's predictions of the past? I don't think streak realizes that Al Gore predictions have actually made a laughingstock of the AGW people.

What's even scarier is that I think streak has missed the last 20 years of the AGW community falling flat on its face with its predictions. I mean aren't there some countries that are supposed to be underwater. Weren't some countries supposed to turn into inhospitable deserts, when they were lush farmland before? Didn't the planet only have 12 years to exist starting in 1997?

But still, the Al Gore fiasco is the rights biggest pile of ammunition against the agw community. And is streak really citing good ol Al? Or is streak actually trolling the left.