[POLL] Is bitcointalk (still) very skeptical towards global warming science?

[squatz1]

... People don't engage with climate skeptics b/c of the sheer amount of data they'd have to provide to refute their points. It's just not something that people want to do when they can quickly just say -- the EARTH IS ROUND AND VACCINES DONT GIVE YOU AUTISM.
...

That's intellectually very lazy at best.  More generally it is a tool custom-made for people who are both lazy and lacking the mental prowess to learn enough about a subject to actually discuss it.  Nobody I know who questions the mainstream narrative on either the 'global climate change' issue or the 'vaccination' issue believes that the earth is flat.

As a matter of fact, someone who puts any 'information' about flat-earth forward is highly suspect to me.  It's a pretty good marker for an individual who is basically participating in a psychological operation of some sort and is to be analyzed as such and obviously not to be trusted.  It is true that there are some weak minded people who probably do fall for the flat-earth psy-op, but I don's see much cross-over between them and the 'climate deniers' or 'anti-vax' crowd both of who are often vastly more knowledgeable about both science and medicine generally then though counterparts, and of a nature who are not averse to challenging authority and orthodoxy.

Back in the day it did seem that bitcointalk.org (formerly 'bitcoin.org forum' a decade ago) were prone to be the type who would challenge orthodoxy and mainstream dogma.  Now, sadly, it seems that the cadre is drawn from a more normie type pool if not skewed toward the pool who are indoctrinated by mainstream scientism more than your average bear.  It seems like a lot of the 'old-timers' who were of the more interesting type moved on.  Presumably to enjoy their new-found life  as multi-millionaires.

Oh I'm not saying that everyone who beleives in climate change not being really also beleives that the earth is flat and vaccines cause autism. I'm saying that instead of refuting the points of climage change deniers, people would much rather attack the lowest hanging fruit of conspiracy theorist which is the flat earthers and vaccine people.

Very lazy, but that's how we are as a society.

But yes, I'd assume that anyone on here who was anti establishment / challenging of mainstream ideas are gone due to being rich now, lol. Does that mean they didn't fully believe in the BTC vision?

[1714917243]

1714917243

[Spendulus]

...It's just not something that people want to do when they can quickly just say -- the EARTH IS ROUND ..

The Earth is not round, that would make it FLAT.

The Earth is approximately a sphere.

[eddie13]

Your 97% slogan is misleading, if you didn’t know..

It is NOT that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans ARE the cause of climate change..
It IS 97% of climate scientists believe the climate IS warming and that humans MAY HAVE SOME effect on the warming......

So basically it means that they agree that humans may have caused atleast 00.000000001% of the climate change we see..

It absolutely does not mean that 97% believe human released CO2 is the cause, or even a main cause..

And yeah.. If you look at the CO2 vs temp chart for a few million years you will see that it doesn’t correlate for crap..
Actual warming has never kept up with their “models” either..

It’s nonsense..

[tvbcof]

Your 97% slogan is misleading, if you didn’t know..

It is NOT that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans ARE the cause of climate change..
It IS 97% of climate scientists believe the climate IS warming and that humans MAY HAVE SOME effect on the warming......

So basically it means that they agree that humans may have caused atleast 00.000000001% of the climate change we see..

It absolutely does not mean that 97% believe human released CO2 is the cause, or even a main cause..

And yeah.. If you look at the CO2 vs temp chart for a few million years you will see that it doesn’t correlate for crap..
Actual warming has never kept up with their “models” either..

It’s nonsense..

The '97%' came from a laughable fraudulant 'meta-analysis' were some non-scientist skimmed a bunch of study titles and may (or may not) have bothered to read some of the abstracts from scientific literature and decided that in some measure the authors of the paper thought that human CO2 had at least an infinately small impact on greenhouse gasses.  Of course most people who are active in any sort of academics will 'admit' that 0.00000001 > 0.000000000.

As I recall, the study even counted Dr. Willie Soon as among their '97%' which is funny because, being an outspoken chap who made is (rather meager) living outside of the traditional academic funding sources, became something of a poster-child of the 'climate denier ' scientists.  Freeman Dyson would have been another were he not so famous and well respected that the mud would not stick to him.  The Climate Huckseters learned several decades ago to run-not-walk from a debate on the subject and choose only such battles as they could win.

[Spendulus]

Your 97% slogan is misleading, if you didn’t know..

It is NOT that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans ARE the cause of climate change..
It IS 97% of climate scientists believe the climate IS warming and that humans MAY HAVE SOME effect on the warming......

So basically it means that they agree that humans may have caused atleast 00.000000001% of the climate change we see..

It absolutely does not mean that 97% believe human released CO2 is the cause, or even a main cause..

And yeah.. If you look at the CO2 vs temp chart for a few million years you will see that it doesn’t correlate for crap..
Actual warming has never kept up with their “models” either..

It’s nonsense..

The '97%' came from a laughable fraudulant 'meta-analysis' were some non-scientist skimmed a bunch of study titles and may (or may not) have bothered to read some of the abstracts from scientific literature and decided that in some measure the authors of the paper thought that human CO2 had at least an infinately small impact on greenhouse gasses.  Of course most people who are active in any sort of academics will 'admit' that 0.00000001 > 0.000000000.

As I recall, the study even counted Dr. Willie Soon as among their '97%' which is funny because, being an outspoken chap who made is (rather meager) living outside of the traditional academic funding sources, became something of a poster-child of the 'climate denier ' scientists.  Freeman Dyson would have been another were he not so famous and well respected that the mud would not stick to him.  The Climate Huckseters learned several decades ago to run-not-walk from a debate on the subject and choose only such battles as they could win.

Moreover, the 97% is not scientific. Science is inquiry and criticism, repeated over and over. The 97% is exactly the opposite, designed to squash critical thinking.

On encountering something such as this, any real scientist would begin asking questions. And he would not stop.

But this is not science. It's propaganda.

[tvbcof]

...

Moreover, the 97% is not scientific. Science is inquiry and criticism, repeated over and over. The 97% is exactly the opposite, designed to squash critical thinking.

On encountering something such as this, any real scientist would begin asking questions. And he would not stop.

But this is not science. It's propaganda.

That's what happened to me.  I deferred looking into the issue for a long time expecting it to require a fair bit of research.  I anticipated finding that the 'global warming' thing was real and was a matter of concern since it was what I heard all of my life.

What actually happened was that I rather quickly ran into very strong indications of fraud of the above nature.  And on a scientific front when one gets into the numbers, the idea of 'climate change' vis-a-vis anthropogenic CO2 is laughable.  My research fairly quickly evolved into more of a political study of why 'they' were hyping this particular fraud.

The above said, methods of modifying the weather and manipulating climate on a regional level using methods such as 'solar radiation management' are not outlandish at all.  I strongly suspect that they can be effective, and probably already are.  They may have the potential to be catastrophically effective as they are further weaponized.

[alani123]

To the naysayers, I'd like to reaffirm the scientific credibility of the 97% claim. It is a statement supported by NASA (among others). Major organizations agree on the matter that global warming is a real phenomena and that it's affected by human activity.

[tvbcof]

To the naysayers, I'd like to reaffirm the scientific credibility of the 97% claim. It is a statement supported by NASA (among others). Major organizations agree on the matter that global warming is a real phenomena and that it's affected by human activity.

NASA and NOAA or two of the most politicized (and useless) administrations in the whole US-branded corp/gov system.  Either of these two issuing a statement about something like this makes me confident that it IS bunk.  I'm not even being facetious!

Anyone who has sat through some of the CSPAN footage of the heads of these types of organizations talking (including specifically the CDC and FDA) really cannot come away without wondering if the people really are borderline retarded.  Sometimes they have assistants/handlers who seem to have it together somewhat.  Sometimes not.  I'm not being facetious about that either.

On occasion there is a chairperson who is actually mentally sharp but who is, politically and policy-wise, genuinely scary.  Obama's EPA Gina McCarthy was one such person fairly recently.

[Jet Cash]

It is certain that the activities of man will affect local climates. Replacing arable land and forests with concrete cities is one obvious case. The killing of vultures by ivory poachers in India has caused a massive increase in disease, and the cost of combating it. Killing the elephants isn't too helpful either. I'm sure you can think of many other examples. However, the impact of the global climate is pretty minimal, and solar cycles have a far greater effect, as history shows. The CO2 reduction scam is a political move, and not based on much real scientific research as I see it. It is a great way to raise taxes, disadvantage certain countries,  and gain control and monitoring of traffic. Electric cars just export pollution out of the cities and into the countryside, but what a great way to take control of people's personal transport.

[tvbcof]

It is certain that the activities of man will affect local climates. Replacing arable land and forests with concrete cities is one obvious case. ...

I suspect that humans (or hominids) may really have had a noteworthy impact on the global climate at some point a million or so years ago.  Basically when 'we' were of homo-habilis or australopithecus grade, knew how to use fire, and experienced a transient population boom.  The changes wouldn't have been via CO2 particularly, but more associated with deforestation which sifted the terrestrial flora somewhat.  It's just kind of an estimate on my part, but is something which seems to be a practical method by which climate could be shifted (over a 'short' several thousand year period of time) by human type creatures using primitive technology.

The current Club-of-Rome induced climate change fraud suggests that we humans are impacting the climate by having a tiny contribution to a trace atmospheric gas which itself has a tiny residence time (being highly in-demand plant-food) and is only a minor greenhouse gas in the atmosphere anyway.  It's quite ludicrous actually.  That's quite different than setting an entire geographic region on fire every year to help bag a few more rabbits.

[alani123]

To the naysayers, I'd like to reaffirm the scientific credibility of the 97% claim. It is a statement supported by NASA (among others). Major organizations agree on the matter that global warming is a real phenomena and that it's affected by human activity.

NASA and NOAA or two of the most politicized (and useless) administrations in the whole US-branded corp/gov system.  Either of these two issuing a statement about something like this makes me confident that it IS bunk.  I'm not even being facetious!

Well, if you're going to call NASA politicized in regards to supporting climate change this heads towards the direction of the type of conspiracy theories that claim that the moon landing was a hoax, and that the earth is also flat. At some point you just have to stop and wonder, just how many people have to be in on it?

All universities would have to be in on it. But I doubt they'd have something to gain. Are all the students independently collecting measurements in on it too? Are weather stations in on it? Are animals whose migration patterns changed also in on it? And how are we supposed to know better? It'd have to be a huge conspiracy involving tons of people. I guess it would've been way expensive to keep all the mouthes of all these people shut too.

[eddie13]

Climate change shills: “appeal to authority”

Obviously most universities are infiltrated by marxists/communists..
Also any government organization is the government and therefore biased towards increasing the size of the government in any way..

All these people trying to starve the trees of CO2..
At our current CO2 levels plant life is like barely surviving compared to history..

[Spendulus]

...
Well, if you're going to call NASA politicized ...

Gavin Schmit who ran that office, and Hansen, if I recall correctly.

They are right out in the open about their radical environmental politics.

Don't talk about stuff you don't know the facts on.

[alani123]

I won't lie, I kind of enjoy the arguments brought up against science.

Like, really, how can you make it politicized? This is such an america-centric approach. There are scientists all over the world, the overwhelming majority of which agree that climate change is real and man made... And yet one of the top arguments against any authority that speaks out against conspiracies, is that they're not credible because they must be dissidents to the republican party... It's a little mind-boggling if you ask me.

[tvbcof]

...
Like, really, how can you make it politicized?...

Well let's see here...  Oh, I have an idea!

Why don't we install a person who is perceived by one wing of the idiot public to be of an appropriate racial background and instruct him that one of the two top missions of NASA is to find ways to make Muslims feel good about their accomplishments?

[Spendulus]

I won't lie, I kind of enjoy the arguments brought up against science.

Like, really, how can you make it politicized? ....

Let's see, you could sneak in at night and monkey with the AC in the senate meeting on Climate in August 1988. That senate committee would be sweltering while the hearing was happening.

That's what Hanson did. Let's see, that's your NASA climate office head, right?

Now what were you saying?

[Cnut237]

To the naysayers, I'd like to reaffirm the scientific credibility of the 97% claim. It is a statement supported by NASA (among others). Major organizations agree on the matter that global warming is a real phenomena and that it's affected by human activity.

I suppose the question here to all the fossil fuel lobbyists doubters is - if you disagree with 97%, then what of level of consensus would convince you? It's obviously a big subject, with a lot of papers published, and a lot of nuanced argument, so it's easy to challenge the figures, as we are talking about people who can be considered to agree, rather than those who have explicitly stated agreement. Arguing whether it's 97% or 85% or 92% is fair enough - but this is a few percentage points, it doesn't negate the overwhelming consensus.

With any contentious subject* when we are considering bias or lack of impartiality, it is important to consider the underlying motivations of experts who are promoting certain viewpoints. Obviously for fossil fuel lobbyists climate-change deniers, they represent vested interests who stand to lose if the truth is accepted (see also the "smoking doesn't cause cancer" argument). I've yet to see any convincing argument for why the "humans cause climate change" experts could be biased.
"Big Oil" is real. "Big Wind" is not (apart from in an unfortunate dietary sense).


*although this subject isn't contentious - there's a 97% consensus amongst experts

[Spendulus]

To the naysayers, I'd like to reaffirm the scientific credibility of the 97% claim. It is a statement supported by NASA (among others). Major organizations agree on the matter that global warming is a real phenomena and that it's affected by human activity.

I suppose the question here to all the fossil fuel lobbyists doubters is - if you disagree with 97%, then what of level of consensus would convince you? It's obviously a big subject, with a lot of papers published, and a lot of nuanced argument, so it's easy to challenge the figures, as we are talking about people who can be considered to agree, rather than those who have explicitly stated agreement. Arguing whether it's 97% or 85% or 92% is fair enough - but this is a few percentage points, it doesn't negate the overwhelming consensus.

With any contentious subject* when we are considering bias or lack of impartiality, it is important to consider the underlying motivations of experts who are promoting certain viewpoints. Obviously for fossil fuel lobbyists climate-change deniers, they represent vested interests who stand to lose if the truth is accepted (see also the "smoking doesn't cause cancer" argument). I've yet to see any convincing argument for why the "humans cause climate change" experts could be biased.
"Big Oil" is real. "Big Wind" is not (apart from in an unfortunate dietary sense).


*although this subject isn't contentious - there's a 97% consensus amongst experts

If the 97% argument has merit, then we should all NOT INVEST OR USE BITCOIN OR CRYPTO.

*although this subject isn't contentious - there's a 97% consensus amongst experts


I do hope that my phrasing it this way has helped clear up this crock of shit argument.

[Cnut237]

If the 97% argument has merit, then we should all NOT INVEST OR USE BITCOIN OR CRYPTO.

*although this subject isn't contentious - there's a 97% consensus amongst experts


I do hope that my phrasing it this way has helped clear up this crock of shit argument.

Not really. You're using a moral argument to try to refute a logical argument. That doesn't have any effect.

I believe that humans are causing climate change, and I also believe that bitcoin is the future... and will concede that bitcoin contributes to climate change.
Similarly, I only give a very small fraction of my income to families from poorer parts of the world, when I could afford to give more. Also I spend money on buying myself a phone or a PC, when the money could be much better spent my say buying mosquito nets.

I said that there is a consensus amongst experts that humans are causing climate change. I didn't say that I was morally perfect.

[Spendulus]

If the 97% argument has merit, then we should all NOT INVEST OR USE BITCOIN OR CRYPTO.

*although this subject isn't contentious - there's a 97% consensus amongst experts


I do hope that my phrasing it this way has helped clear up this crock of shit argument.

Not really. You're using a moral argument to try to refute a logical argument. That doesn't have any effect.
...

Not in the least. Unless you think Satoshi's nine page page is moral, instead of logic. I kind of think c programming is logic, though. Don't you? Or perhaps you didn't understand the parallel in my argument and refutation of yours?