climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[Matteo V]

The world was supposed to have ended in about 20 different ways 20 years ago already.

Why should we believe it this time?

Kind of funny that most religions (excluding the really crazy cults) are more optimistic than the new religion of "scientologis......." oooops, that one is already taken. How about the new religion of "Majority of Scientistnesses"? Either way, the old religions were kind of getting boring anyway. Nice to have something new.

[marlboroughman]

https://www.historyextra.com/period/med ... h-history/

[Matteo V]

....Personally I am not supporting any view "religiously". I am a "believer" in that I'm just going along with what the majority of scientists believes. If they can't come up with proof either way, I can save myself the trouble of trying....

You fit a near "textbook definition" of a follower of an organized religion.

1. You cede the imperative to think for yourself and question outside of what you are told to believe

2. The purveyor(s) of the narrative to which you vow your allegiance can provide no proof of validity, so you are expected to take their word on "faith"

3. If you do question the narrative directed by the purveyors of your religion, you are excommunicated, other members are required to denounce you, and those other member cannot have dealings with you without facing excommunication themselves.


All three of the above are the exact opposite of science. I would suggest you 'think for your self, and question authority'.

The only thing that makes any sense to me here is the last sentence in which you say that I should think for myself and question authority. "I vow my allegiance etc" ? where do I do that ?? I think I've indicated that I'm not convinced either way but prefer to stay on the safe side of the argument. I am actually questioning the narrative by inviting alternative ideas/theories, yours and others. Some things coming out are interesting, some are not. The only thing you could reasonably claim is that I am not well informed and that I shouldn't be having an opinion either way at least not in public. There is something to be said for that. What's your viewpoint on the holocaust by the way, did it happen ? And on vaccinations ? There are many things we believe because we are told something and often because we are forced to pick a side, even if there is controversy about it. That doesn't necessarily mean we are "religious" about it or aren't questioning it. A lot also depends on the consequences of picking the wrong side. This is also the case for man made global warming. I seem to be repeating myself.. You obviously feel that the arguments made by the climate sceptics are convincing enough to sway most independently thinking people and "believers" are believers because they can't or won't think for themselves. I can't believe that but I do intend to get better informed on the subject. If you happen to have any interesting links or things to read, I'd be interested to hear about them.

Sorry for missing this post for so long. Here we go!

....Personally I am not supporting any view "religiously". I am a "believer" in that I'm just going along with what the majority of scientists believes. If they can't come up with proof either way, I can save myself the trouble of trying....

"Believes" is the key to the problem with your statement. NEVER, EVER should you resort to "believing" what someone else does, just because they do, or who they are. If you do, you are ceding the ability to think for yourself, to someone else. And if that other person has any personal or political/power agenda, you are helping them achieve an agenda that may not be beneficial to you or to others.

Anytime someone tells you that you should believe as they do, and you intend to take a side, you must question their evidence AND motivations. On the AGW issue, the evidence has been faked on both sides, and there are clear financial motivations for beliefs on both sides.

But the most important thing in this debate is that there is a 3rd choice. And that 3rd choice is that "we do not know what is happening, nor do we know anything about the effects of what we do not know is happening".

But don't just believe me on this. You need to dig deep, examine what evidence is being cited, what evidence is being buried, what evidence is being faked, the degree of uncertainty to which those predictions exist in, the failure of those predictions in the past, and the scandals that have rocked this issue across all viewpoints.

Another piece of advice I would offer you is to stay focused. While you may think it is "telling" to know others controversial views (vaccinations and holocaust), it does not actually help to have that info because those are separate topics. Virtually everyone will have some very sane and accurate views on the reality of one topic, but will still have an emotional view on another topic. Think of it this way, "A parrot that squawks 'the sky is blue, the sky is blue', is correct even though the parrot is just a parrot". Your concern should be with the issue and reality first. Concern for another's crazy off topic views should be of very little concern.

[slide]

picking little bits of posts to quote ,the bits you want to make it more abusive , is childish at best , but hateful at worse -I know lots of kiters and they are great people ,friendly helpful happy to advise and quick to run to your assistance ,if you get in a jam , and of course that works both ways , but I guess a subject like this just attracts idiots who really should be out kiting

[marlboroughman]

https://www.sfgate.com/weather/article/ ... 870555.php

[marlboroughman]

[marlboroughman]

Equatorial Region Sea Levels Have FALLEN Since The 1600s
https://www.auctoresonline.org/images/a ... ascape.PDF

[jumptheshark]

Still sighting Nils-Axel Mörner?

And it's not even new bullshit, its just a rehashed paper from 2004 ! Oooh he found a skeleton in a reef! That is objective shit right there, and look at this tree, and this here old painting!


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... vel-claims


Please, actual scientists measure things, they don't just wobble a stick in their hands to "divine" the answers.

"In reality, three tide gauges exist in the Maldives, whose outputs are all available online and can be inspected by the public via the UK-based scientific collaborative research effort the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. One is in the south at Gan, which shows a clear and consistent rise since before 1990. A second is located at Hanimaadhoo in the north of the country, and shows no consistent trend from 1992. The third is at the capital Male', and shows a strong upward trend from the early 1990s until 2009."

[marlboroughman]

Maldives to open five new airports in 2019
https://maldives.net.mv/31166/maldives- ... s-in-2019/

[marlboroughman]

Reconstruction of Sea Level Change in Indonesia: Preliminary Evidence From Maratua-Kakaban Complex
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 6/1/012027