Bah. No. It is trying to show how there are people that hold out against what is common sense. It is this bias caused by anti-government crap. Every time I've encountered anyone who has a bachelors or high and they are very against the idea of global warming, there is also some additional component. ALWAYS. It is NEVER pure science. Last guy I got into it with was some buffoon who went to Columbia and started ranting about Marxists.
I typically do not get involved in threads like this but could not help myself this time  . I have read a few pages and must say " WHAT THE FUCK" The first thing that jumps out from the last few pages is that you are trying to validate your arguments with a third grader mentality. 1 - Insinuating you have a degree above a bachelors degree, and more importantly that you "ALWAYS" (because you are intellectually superior) find the "additional component" 2- Validate your comments as being correct by making other educated people look inferior to you with statements like "buffoon who went to Columbia" etc. I can guarantee a few things: 1 - You will NEVER prove any of your statements - It is far beyond your capabilities and any 1 scientist capabilities to do so. 2 - You will continue to believe the shit coming out of your mouth when it opens because your only purpose is to persuade others to think like you. Lastly, have you considered the following: Taken from the signature of another BCT member (Unacceptable) "If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day long, you are the asshole." -Raylan Givens Every time I've encountered anyone who has a bachelors or high and they are very against the idea of global warming Maybe you are the asshole  Where do I insinuate that I have more than a bachelors? Or is it more bullshit.. why can't you guys just stick with facts. Yes I won't prove my statements and neither will you guys. It is true that I am trying to persuade others to realize that their anti-government biases fail them in this one issue. Yes, that happens to mean they'd believe what I believe. Why else would I post in here? lol |
|
|
|
In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle. The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.
This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now. So you are a solar cycle denier? How retrograde.  "Very small percentage" = appeal to popularity (a logical fallacy) You are obviously too young to remember the long procession of hobgoblins used to justify destroying freedom, from the neo-Malthusian population bomb and ice age panics of the 70s, and the catastrophic warming and nuclear winter of the 80s, to the climate change of the 90s. You are scared witless of whatever fashionable new bogeyman the Fabians and Frankfort School throw out this decade. You may relax, dear child, because none of those instances of catastrophism (which are merely secular versions of eschatology) have come to pass. If we get wiped out, it will be by sudden planetary (think supervolcanic) or astrological (giant meteor of doom) factors beyond our control. So spare us the hubris, and especially the accusations that doing nothing = violence. Don't press that specious nonsense in my face or you'll get cut. You compare these things that were little more than a few pop (popsci) entries into a magazine with something that has grown in consensus over the past 20-30 years. (Those are your dates, you called climate change a 90's thing.. )We're in 2016 now and nothing really seems to show that the consensus is wrong. I said very small percentage because there I don't have a real number or anything to cite. Feel free to disagree. You will be wrong. |
|
|
|
...
It sucks that physics works out the way it does, but you have to get past this blindingly narrow ideological approach to life. Inaction now is blatant violence towards those who have no say in having their environment turned upside down and destroyed in some ways.
'Action' (not 'inaction') in the way the 'consensus' describes it (however nebulously) is blatant violence against all but the upper 1% or less of the world's population. For probably 25% at least it is effectively a death sentence. It is a genocidal program, or at least a major component there-of. I believe this is more the underpinning of your belief than rational inspection of the evidence. It will be a far lesser mistake to switch to renewables then find out we were wrong than it will be to find out we are wrong after even more damage will have been done. Oil companies have already switched their mining methods to things like fracking because we've used up round one of oil. Even if you are correct about manmade global warming being a fraud, you've basically admitted we do not live in a way approaching sustainable. You did say that renewables = 25% death sentence, right? I would like to hear your views on what we should do as carbon based burn'em up energy will be used up at some point? Or will this just be another inconsistency in your beliefs... What is the bar for you to admit you were wrong? If you have not set a bar it is further evidence that your beliefs come from somewhere not so rational. |
|
|
|
In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle. The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.
This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now. Yanno, some people lose at the stock market.. and they might say they were winners.. What does that say about Buffet? Just a random analogy to try to get it across. This is an example of exactly what the paper talks about. The paper Spendulus lies about not being able to read to maintain his cognitive comfort. I'm not a troll. I wish you guys had solid convincing arguments that I am wrong. You don't and your hodge podge logical arguments are damaging to where we need to move. You need to realize that libertarianism and market solutions fail time and time again when presented with problems that have a tragedy of the commons issue. Soften your views on life and you'll get more people believing. We need to get rid of the bullshit laws to make fewer laws. It sucks that physics works out the way it does, but you have to get past this blindingly narrow ideological approach to life. Inaction now is blatant violence towards those who have no say in having their environment turned upside down and destroyed in some ways. |
|
|
|
Yet another attempt to lay a foundation to attack real science in the court system since doing so in the lab or on the chalkboard is becoming increasingly impossible as the years drift by and the fraudulent model world vanished over the horizon.  Bah. No. It is trying to show how there are people that hold out against what is common sense. It is this bias caused by anti-government crap. Every time I've encountered anyone who has a bachelors or high and they are very against the idea of global warming, there is also some additional component. ALWAYS. It is NEVER pure science. Last guy I got into it with was some buffoon who went to Columbia and started ranting about Marxists. Common sense applied to the chart says that your theories about the dangers of evil fossil fuel use are all a load of horse shit. The chart spaghetti are the model predictions and the solid line is observed reality. The endless cronyism and wealth generated in the 'sustainability' movement is a direct result of the now discredited 'science' which produced the flawed models. My 'conspiracy theory' is that this was no accident. Other charts show that reality is now outside the error bar on the spaghetti. Until a few years ago, the defense against 'common sense' was to 'hide the decline' and try to explain it away, assure the mouth-breathing public that disaster was still right around the corner, and propose that the fact that reality was not playing ball only meant in some nebulous that the danger was even worse than previously predicted. The new strategy seems to be to simply deny the existence of the problem with the theory and hope that Joe Sixpack is to fuckin' stupid to notice. Sadly that has turned out to be a surprisingly effective strategy. Maybe not effective enough though, in which case the fallback which is being set up is to simply criminalize 'denial' be it science based or not. This is why I consider you guys 'regressive'. Regressing right back to the dark ages when the priests of the Catholic church defined reality and the earth was flat. The analog between the church and it's priest class vs. the IIPC and it's 'scientismist' class is startling. edits: minor Your chart has C growing at .25 C when everywhere else says .75-.85 ? If it went back to the beginning of 1900s then we could figure out if your chart is valid. Why? Your complaints matter not. Why? The goal of the chart is to demonstrate that the climate models, and thus the 'science' upon which they are based, are shit. The computer models don't go back to 'the beginning of the 1900's because the bogus science was not constructed at that time, and because the defective sims were not run on Hollerith machines (though they may as well be for the results they produce.) Seems that the only 'legal' data is that which is diddled by the scientpriests. Since it is more challenging to diddle the present readings upward without being caught, the usual technique these days is to 'homogenize' the historic readings downward. As Orwell famously stated, 'Those who control the present...' Just so you know, I personally don't doubt that we are in a warming trend here on Earth at the present time, and I don't know of anyone who does. It's been going on in fits and starts since the earth was colder than it is now, and nobody doubts that at many times it was. My complaint is that it is ever more obvious to me that humans burning fossil fuels have very close to zero impact on the trend. We humans cause enough needless problems that we don't need to invent non-existent ones to attack. Unless, of course, there are other reasons to do so and 'the ends justify the means' so to speak. It is not "my complaint". I am saying that your data seems to be at odds with what most of the scientific community says. Again, you people never address shit. You just try and find a way around addressing it to maintain your cognitive security. I suppose asking for a graph that goes back further is not the best request, but it would show a truer amount of warming. We humans do have enough needless problems, but ignoring the biggest one we've yet to confront because it doesn't fit your politics is not the best way forward. As much as I despise the pseudo-intellectual buffoon known as Spendulus, at least you are fairly coherent in your arguments. |
|
|
|
.... the fallback which is being set up is to simply criminalize 'denial' be it science based or not. This is why I consider you guys 'regressive'. Regressing right back to the dark ages when the priests of the Catholic church defined reality and the earth was flat. The analog between the church and it's priest class vs. the IIPC and it's 'scientismist' class is startling.
A concern about global cooling is certainly warranted. Here is an article from the Huffington Post (not exactly a bunch of right wing conspiracy theorists, are they ? ) Anyone who wants to shut down discussion of this or criminalize it is bat shit crazy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/solar-lull-little-ice-age-sun-scientists_n_4645248.htmlSun Scientists Debate Whether Solar Lull Could Trigger Another ‘Little Ice Age’ But a relatively quiet sun could cause problems. Some scientists say that this period of weak solar activity may mirror what happened before the so-called Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715 — a period named after solar astronomers Annie and E. Walter Maunder, who studied sunspots and helped identify the sun’s strange activity in the latter part of the 17th Century. That time period saw only 30 sunspots (one one-thousandth of what would be expected) and coincided with a “Little Ice Age” in Europe, during which the Thames River and the Baltic Sea froze over. Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading in the U.K., estimated that we have u p to a one-in-five chance of being in Maunder Minimum conditions 40 years from now.TPTB ('the powers that bank') are 'predicting' a 400% increase food prices in the coming decade and a variety of other hardships to befall the pleb class. It's a fair hypothesis that they 'know' things that others don't...in addition to the rather obvious one that they know how to get wealthy and stay that way. Even at the heart of the last ice-age, glaciation never got to my little corner of earth so I'll be building a greenhouse. Actually, it's not a long duration cold snap that concerns me since even a 'mini' one is unlikely to impact me in my life-cycle. It's more that as everything that the the city dwelling populations consume, from food through medications through water, is dictated by a rapidly consolidating multinational corporate entity structure (see the merger of Bayer (formerly IG Farben of NAZI gas chamber fame) and Monsanto.) Such operations as the great global warming hoax are only 'sustainable' by neurologically damaging the population as the standard propaganda techniques become to absurd to be suitably effective on their own. I'd save your time having a discourse with Spendulus. He's the guy who says he knows better than the consensus of phd climatologists/whatever but he immediately trusts google spellcheck when it tells him HS level vocab doesn't exist. Think about it. That is the type of person you're talking with. He's the one whose got your back. Your area of the world if it is so nice for global warming won't be so nice when large portions of the earth are displaced. This sort of stuff won't happen in our life times. This right here is more example of that paper. Your fixation on these conspiracy theories of it being some big mass manipulation misleads you time and time again. *THAT* is the core of your biases. All this other stuff is just smoke you've created for the benefit of yourself and others. |
|
|
|
Yet another attempt to lay a foundation to attack real science in the court system since doing so in the lab or on the chalkboard is becoming increasingly impossible as the years drift by and the fraudulent model world vanished over the horizon. Bah. No. It is trying to show how there are people that hold out against what is common sense. It is this bias caused by anti-government crap. Every time I've encountered anyone who has a bachelors or high and they are very against the idea of global warming, there is also some additional component. ALWAYS. It is NEVER pure science. Last guy I got into it with was some buffoon who went to Columbia and started ranting about Marxists. Common sense applied to the chart says that your theories about the dangers of evil fossil fuel use are all a load of horse shit. The chart spaghetti are the model predictions and the solid line is observed reality. The endless cronyism and wealth generated in the 'sustainability' movement is a direct result of the now discredited 'science' which produced the flawed models. My 'conspiracy theory' is that this was no accident. Other charts show that reality is now outside the error bar on the spaghetti. Until a few years ago, the defense against 'common sense' was to 'hide the decline' and try to explain it away, assure the mouth-breathing public that disaster was still right around the corner, and propose that the fact that reality was not playing ball only meant in some nebulous that the danger was even worse than previously predicted. The new strategy seems to be to simply deny the existence of the problem with the theory and hope that Joe Sixpack is to fuckin' stupid to notice. Sadly that has turned out to be a surprisingly effective strategy. Maybe not effective enough though, in which case the fallback which is being set up is to simply criminalize 'denial' be it science based or not. This is why I consider you guys 'regressive'. Regressing right back to the dark ages when the priests of the Catholic church defined reality and the earth was flat. The analog between the church and it's priest class vs. the IIPC and it's 'scientismist' class is startling. edits: minor Your chart has C growing at .25 C when everywhere else says .75-.85 ? If it went back to the beginning of 1900s then we could figure out if your chart is valid. Why? |
|
|
|
... Here is the conclusions. 2 Conclusion
There is considerable evidence that the rejection of (climate) science involves a component of conspiracist discourse....pseudo-scientific...incoherent, which ...conspiracist ideation....blah, blah, blah.
Yet another attempt to lay a foundation to attack real science in the court system since doing so in the lab or on the chalkboard is becoming increasingly impossible as the years drift by and the fraudulent model world vanished over the horizon. Bah. No. It is trying to show how there are people that hold out against what is common sense. It is this bias caused by anti-government crap. Every time I've encountered anyone who has a bachelors or high and they are very against the idea of global warming, there is also some additional component. ALWAYS. It is NEVER pure science. Last guy I got into it with was some buffoon who went to Columbia and started ranting about Marxists. |
|
|
|
The abstract makes zero sense, as for example it does not handle the matter of a whole lot of highly esteemed solar physicists who are strongly warning that the sun may be entering a cooling phase.
I guess paying one's own money for gibberish makes it meaningful and more 'coherent' to some. To me, that it makes one more of a horses' ass. I suppose that most people who punch through the pay-wall to get at such drivel actually use my tax dollars to do it though. For now. I have no problem reading or debating an article. But I strongly feel that an article that's paywalled cannot be presented as the subject of debate. Side note: Not uncommonly, paywalled articles can be found somewhere else on the internet. Yes, if someone gets through the paywall, then Springer has a stored cookie on their computer which allows the access. Whatever/however. DWMA noted he didn't even see that on his machine, so his actions were not intentional. The article is freely available. Maybe springer is normally a paywall? It says "open access" at the top of the page, then explains that this article is freely available to anyone and everyone. I could get the _exact_ quote. Here is the conclusions. 2 Conclusion
There is considerable evidence that the rejection of (climate) science involves a component of conspiracist discourse. In this article, we provided preliminary evidence that the pseudo-scientific arguments that underpin climate science denial are mutually incoherent, which is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation. The lack of mechanisms to self-correct the scientific incoherencies manifest in denialist discourse further evidences that this is not the level at which rational activity is focused, and we must move to a higher level, looking at the role of conspiracist ideation in the political realm. At that political level, climate denial achieves coherence in its uniform and unifying opposition to GHG emission cuts. The coherent political stance of denial may not be undercut by its scientific incoherence. Climate science denial is therefore perhaps best understood as a rational activity that replaces a coherent body of science with an incoherent and conspiracist body of pseudo-science for political reasons and with considerable political coherence and effectiveness.
Not my problem why your little article comes up on your browser and not mine. So....let's run a little reality check here. Anybody else on this form able to access the article? (By the way, my spell checker is point out a dozen spelling errors in your "abstract." Thought you might want to let your climate preacher boy know.)
I tried 2 different browsers. I will send the link to another person shortly. Wow, this is so solid. You just prove it. ideation is a word ! It is spelled correctly. I can't help it google has a goofy spellchecker? conspiracist is a word and spelled correctly.
incoherencies is a word and spelled correctly. It is bizarre. You try to belittle this stuff so hard. You are now telling me words don't exist when anyone who went to college should be familar with ideation and conspiracist etc. Give up trying to act intellectual. You sir are a total fucking sham. PS - You also can't operate a web-browser or have some bizarre out of data software. The link works all over. Not sure if you are a liar or just stupid. Please tell me which or we can stand with simple coward. |
|
|
|
See you said any 'any quasi-scientist knows that one rarely knows anything'. Then later you say -" Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact. In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false."
These 2 states are at great contradiction. You guys are so full of them. THe paper lays them out. If you really are a smart guy, then you should strive to be a smart guy, and you should strive to eliminate all these weird contradictions in your reasoning that allow your biases to perpetuate.
To me, and to genuine scientists, 'know' means 100% and this is a very very high bar. I'll give you a little lesson about how to operate in such a challenging world: The continuous nature of the slope describing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is measured at Mao Loa (sic?), say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to represent a delta if it did indeed exist. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpgThe computation of anthropogenic CO2 releases based on economic records is, say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to compute a significant delta at around y2k. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/CO2_Emissions_IPCC_1024.jpg(By chance, both plots I found happen to be from a warmunista shill site (which doesn't proxy, so click to view.)) So clearly, the idea that humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and it builds up to cause a problem, has at least 98% chance of being wrong. Roughly, but close enough. This is about as close to 'knowing' something as is practical in the real world. As it happens, there are a whole chain of additional ludicrously small probability suggestions and/or utter absurdities between the theory that handing over $100's of TRILLIONS of dollars over the next decade and control of the global economy to a gaggle of bozos at the UN will save the planet certain death. It's hard to believe that anyone above idiot rating would actually believe this, but so it seems to be. A good illustration of the quality of propaganda that money can buy these days. https://www.corbettreport.com/and-now-for-the-100-trillion-dollar-bankster-climate-swindle/At one point you said this is all "proven". Previously you said it was rare for anyone to know anything. Which is it? YOu basically give credibility to the paper I posted. You guys have huge cognitive biases because of your political views which unfortunately prevent you from looking at things logically. You can look all around and see direct evidence of the earth warming at a rate far greater than anything in man's history. Maybe not in your backyard... but.. it doesn't take much. |
|
|
|
The abstract makes zero sense, as for example it does not handle the matter of a whole lot of highly esteemed solar physicists who are strongly warning that the sun may be entering a cooling phase.
I guess paying one's own money for gibberish makes it meaningful and more 'coherent' to some. To me, that it makes one more of a horses' ass. I suppose that most people who punch through the pay-wall to get at such drivel actually use my tax dollars to do it though. For now. I have no problem reading or debating an article. But I strongly feel that an article that's paywalled cannot be presented as the subject of debate. Side note: Not uncommonly, paywalled articles can be found somewhere else on the internet. Yes, if someone gets through the paywall, then Springer has a stored cookie on their computer which allows the access. Whatever/however. DWMA noted he didn't even see that on his machine, so his actions were not intentional. The article is freely available. Maybe springer is normally a paywall? It says "open access" at the top of the page, then explains that this article is freely available to anyone and everyone. I could get the _exact_ quote. Here is the conclusions. 2 Conclusion
There is considerable evidence that the rejection of (climate) science involves a component of conspiracist discourse. In this article, we provided preliminary evidence that the pseudo-scientific arguments that underpin climate science denial are mutually incoherent, which is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation. The lack of mechanisms to self-correct the scientific incoherencies manifest in denialist discourse further evidences that this is not the level at which rational activity is focused, and we must move to a higher level, looking at the role of conspiracist ideation in the political realm. At that political level, climate denial achieves coherence in its uniform and unifying opposition to GHG emission cuts. The coherent political stance of denial may not be undercut by its scientific incoherence. Climate science denial is therefore perhaps best understood as a rational activity that replaces a coherent body of science with an incoherent and conspiracist body of pseudo-science for political reasons and with considerable political coherence and effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
The abstract makes zero sense, as for example it does not handle the matter of a whole lot of highly esteemed solar physicists who are strongly warning that the sun may be entering a cooling phase.
I guess paying one's own money for gibberish makes it meaningful and more 'coherent' to some. To me, that it makes one more of a horses' ass. I suppose that most people who punch through the pay-wall to get at such drivel actually use my tax dollars to do it though. For now. Lol you babbling retard. I am not part of any education institution. I clicked on it and was able to read it. That was it. Why you guys have such problems, I don't know. I should try from another browser without the cookies I suppose... OH well, I'm sure it'd be some other bullshit so you can cognitively be at peace with yourself. That paper explains why you guys think the way you do. If you had the capacity to read it objectively and apply it within the framework of your own world views, you'd understand how solidly it nails what you're about. I can see from the abstract that the screed is full of shit. Any quasi-scientist understand that one rarely 'knows' anything, making the suggestion that we 'deniers' hold mutually conflicting views absurd. I was actually disposed to believing that 'global warming' was real until I actually looked into the science behind it. This occurred after wilikon started this thread in fact. It only took a few days of study for me to realize that it was a sham of epic proportions, and almost everything I've seen since only strengthens my hypothesis here. Again, the 'anthropogenic global warming is a hoax' hypothesis is remarkably coherent and corroborated by observations. It may have escaped you, but the models upon which a lot of policy and false 'hope' were based are old enough not to be verified against reality and they have failed miserably. Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact. In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false. Yet people want to stick with the pre-supposed solution (which is, give a certain group of people vast amounts of money and control of the global economy) for some reason. <chuckle>
Epic that you turn this into some anti-government rant. You guys are like so far out there. You got the feds looking in your windows at night or what?
Ever heard of a guy named Snowden? See you said any 'any quasi-scientist knows that one rarely knows anything'. Then later you say -" Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact. In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false." These 2 states are at great contradiction. You guys are so full of them. THe paper lays them out. If you really are a smart guy, then you should strive to be a smart guy, and you should strive to eliminate all these weird contradictions in your reasoning that allow your biases to perpetuate. |
|
|
|
The abstract makes zero sense, as for example it does not handle the matter of a whole lot of highly esteemed solar physicists who are strongly warning that the sun may be entering a cooling phase.
I guess paying one's own money for gibberish makes it meaningful and more 'coherent' to some. To me, that it makes one more of a horses' ass. I suppose that most people who punch through the pay-wall to get at such drivel actually use my tax dollars to do it though. For now. Lol you babbling retard. I am not part of any education institution. I clicked on it and was able to read it. That was it. Why you guys have such problems, I don't know. I should try from another browser without the cookies I suppose... OH well, I'm sure it'd be some other bullshit so you can cognitively be at peace with yourself. That paper explains why you guys think the way you do. If you had the capacity to read it objectively and apply it within the framework of your own world views, you'd understand how solidly it nails what you're about. I can see from the abstract that the screed is full of shit. Any quasi-scientist understand that one rarely 'knows' anything, making the suggestion that we 'deniers' hold mutually conflicting views absurd. I was actually disposed to believing that 'global warming' was real until I actually looked into the science behind it. This occurred after wilikon started this thread in fact. It only took a few days of study for me to realize that it was a sham of epic proportions, and almost everything I've seen since only strengthens my hypothesis here. Again, the 'anthropogenic global warming is a hoax' hypothesis is remarkably coherent and corroborated by observations. It may have escaped you, but the models upon which a lot of policy and false 'hope' were based are old enough not to be verified against reality and they have failed miserably. Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact. In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false. Yet people want to stick with the pre-supposed solution (which is, give a certain group of people vast amounts of money and control of the global economy) for some reason. <chuckle>
Epic that you turn this into some anti-government rant. You guys are like so far out there. You got the feds looking in your windows at night or what?
Ever heard of a guy named Snowden? You guys are so pumped full of the biases of anti-government that you can't help yourselves. You MUST save face. We can argue about the science all day and you guys will keep saying it is wrong. I find it exceptionally coincidental that people have been saying this would be happening for decades and we're seeing all sorts of direct evidence. I guess it was just coincidence that global warming is falling directly in line with what scientists have been saying for decades... or solar flares? What do you guys blame it on? Solar maximum? Look, I agree government types want power. Thats why I describe myself as a libertarian liberal. Although I understand how libertarianism falls apart in so many areas and can only be used as an ideal philosophy to achieve, not as a direct framework to create all (limit?) laws. I don't like stupid bureaucrats. I grew up in the public education system and managed to score top 1/2 % on the SAT while barely graduating HS and learning next to nothing there. If I'd had better teachers in some classes, my life could have been better. Instead, I got goofy government workers and I was too young to realize their incompetence. I think that formed my anti-authoritarian roots. However you guys got this one wrong. It is sad. Look into yourself and your biases and realize that we should do something about this ASAP. Save all the anti-government passion for things where they really do not know what they're talking about. |
|
|
|
The abstract makes zero sense, as for example it does not handle the matter of a whole lot of highly esteemed solar physicists who are strongly warning that the sun may be entering a cooling phase.
I guess paying one's own money for gibberish makes it meaningful and more 'coherent' to some. To me, that it makes one more of a horses' ass. I suppose that most people who punch through the pay-wall to get at such drivel actually use my tax dollars to do it though. For now. Lol you babbling retard. I am not part of any education institution. I clicked on it and was able to read it. That was it. Why you guys have such problems, I don't know. I should try from another browser without the cookies I suppose... OH well, I'm sure it'd be some other bullshit so you can cognitively be at peace with yourself. That paper explains why you guys think the way you do. If you had the capacity to read it objectively and apply it within the framework of your own world views, you'd understand how solidly it nails what you're about. Epic that you turn this into some anti-government rant. You guys are like so far out there. You got the feds looking in your windows at night or what? |
|
|
|
... Here is the abstract. Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable. People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissions—such as regulation or increased taxation—threaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking. Instead, we suggest that people who reject the fact that the Earth’s climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings. Hence, claims that the globe “is cooling” can coexist with claims that the “observed warming is natural” and that “the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us.” Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that “something must be wrong” with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation. This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.
As framed, the 'consensus' on anthropogenic global climate change attributable to global greenhouse gasses is even worse than 'incoherent.' It is both logically and observably wrong. The idea that a certain group of people have conceived of and implemented the scam in order to justify controlling the economic activity of the planet is both coherent and matches the evidence extraordinarily well. "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionallyYou're right, nothing happening. All made up. Just random fluctutations that have oddly been predicted for decades to CONTROL YOU. Science sucks when it doesn't fit with our world belief. Really, it sucks that there isn't some nice solution that doesn't require regulations. This doesn't make reality not reality. |
|
|
|
Little pictures for the feeble minded to rally around. Helps you live in your little bias bubble. Intellectual cowards. |
|
|
|
Reads behind paywalls can be outright rejected, since they cannot be read. I hereby reject your linky. Not saying it is the crazy talk that the abstract appears to indicate, just saying that we cannot fully appreciate it's alarmist hyperbolic trajectory toward damnation of those other than the paid off tit suckers of Gore, without being able to READ your "Very Interesting Read." lol... Not sure why it is a paywall for you? Perhaps the site where it was referred to me opened it up, but I can read the article in entirety without paying or logging into anything. It really is fascinating. It basically digs into the underlying biases of many of the people in this thread. At a meta level, it explains what is really going on in this thread. It proposes answers to my why?s which fits with my world view. Here is the abstract. Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable. People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissions—such as regulation or increased taxation—threaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking. Instead, we suggest that people who reject the fact that the Earth’s climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings. Hence, claims that the globe “is cooling” can coexist with claims that the “observed warming is natural” and that “the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us.” Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that “something must be wrong” with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation. This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.
|
|
|
|
It's not like most of those who agrees with climate change are doing it out of research. They just parrot what they see on media.
There's SOME truth in climate change denying. What's wrong is reddit-tier people shitting on the rational points.
If you try to get the reasoning out of the skeptics, it is all grasping at straws with nonsensical logic. While they are not parroting what they see in the media, they have their own biases that prevent them from thinking in a systematic and correct way. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
