Weather Crisis

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 64
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Weather Readings:
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen is former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a position he held from 19835 until his retirement in 2013. His credentials include: 
Ph.D., Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964).
S.M., Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961).
A.B. (mcl), Physics, Harvard University (1960).

A quote from Dr. Richard is as follows:
We’re talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios – of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less. 
I think it’s mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.” https://www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/ 

Dr. Richard's argument in simple terms outlines how CO2 is only one defining factor when it comes to the weather. He argues that the weather has many qualities that affect it, and only focusing on one, and making it seem like everything is problematic and unnecessary. The amount of papers that Dr. Richard has published is equivalent to roughly about 180 PHD’s, which is an enormous amount of credentials. 

Did you know that the amount of natural disasters have actually decreased in the last century, and not just by a small margin, but by an extraordinary amount. An article by Michal Shellenburger states,” Over the last 30 years, the United Nations, climate scientists, and governments around the world have claimed that climate change is making natural disasters including hurricanes, floods, and heat waves more frequent. 
Climate change has helped drive a fivefold increase in the number of weather-related disasters in the last 50 years,” reported National Public Radio last fall, citing a report by the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization. 
But the data also show that the number of climate related disasters actually declined over the last 20 years by about 10 percent.”

Data like this is very open to the public, but not weather and environmental change is a very complicated thing, and not everyone has the credentials and is educated enough to understand the data.

The data that we have, along with the actual experts that we have, show without a shadow of a doubt that the environment is not currently in any type of crisis. Now this does not mean that we should continue to use fossil fuels and dirty energy sources without a care in the world. Human innovation is the most fundamentally important aspect in human development, and to take that away would take away from us evolving into becoming a better species and society. 

We should be finding cleaner and more efficient ways to make energy, but what we should not be doing is enforcing unsustainable energy, and causing thousands of people to suffer, for the sake of “saving the world”.  
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,058
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,299
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Weather is.

And will be.


Crises are human internal dilemmas relative to survival and associated fears.

 Coping strategies are variable.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,142
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Wow, he looks like George Costanza.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,032
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Lol, your link is debunking observations with opinions. The epitome of fake "fact checking"
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,032
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Lol, your link is debunking observations with opinions. The epitome of fake "fact checking"

Another one is a strawman debunking out of context, as if you click the source, it clearly shows a single graph he is talking about.

That's more than enough to discredit "skepticalscience" as anything more than a propaganda machine.

It's more likely the non-propagandized science is far more accurate and least biased.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 270
Posts: 7,758
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
"Observations" lol
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,032
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes lol, things like graphs are observations, not opinions.
Who indoctrinated you differently?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,142
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

Shouldn't you be on George Santos's web site?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,032
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Low-effort trolling won't change the weather.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,058
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
The consensus opinion of climate experts (97%) says your goofball is wrong.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,032
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Well there you go. Consensus is propaganda, not science. Nobody takes a poll to decide what a chart says.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]

“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”



Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,032
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
“I've had a lot of worries in my life, most of which never happened.”

-Mark Twain
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,058
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
So you are only 97% science denier, got it.


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,032
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Lol, nobody does a poll to decide what's a scientific fact. Science isn't consensus.

You probably have no clue how science actually works.

I don't deny science, I deny that actual science comes from cultish feel-goods and consensus polls.

In fact, science is the polar opposite of mob rule and consensus because it only takes one person to use science to  design a repeatable experiment that others can then follow.

But consensus and religion have always been the staunchest foes and deniers of Science throughout history.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,142
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Sidewalker

U.S. Christians, especially evangelical Christians, identify as environmentalists at very low rates compared to the general population. According to a Pew Research Center poll from May 2020, while 62% of religiously unaffiliated U.S. adults agree that the Earth is warming primarily due to human action, only 35% of U.S. Protestants do – including just 24% of white evangelical Protestants.
Politically powerful Christian interest groups publicly dispute the climate science consensus. A coalition of major evangelical groups, including Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, launched a movement opposing what they describe as “the false worldview” of environmentalism, which supposedly is “striving to put America, and the world, under its destructive control.”

Do you think Gp is really televangelist Jim Bakker?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,032
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Low-effort trolling won't change the weather. Or science.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,902
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
You are all going to die, just accept it. 
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,142
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@sadolite

Tru dat !
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 270
Posts: 7,758
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@sadolite
You are all going to die, just accept it.
Its harder for me to accept the fact that I have to live in the world full of idiots.

Dying seems like a relief at this point.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,902
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Best.Korea
Calling other people idiots implies that you think you are not an idiot. Just sayin.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 270
Posts: 7,758
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@sadolite
I am an idiot. I am a mistake. Thats why I said that death would be a relief at this point.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,299
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Dat true.
Sam_Flynn
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 121
0
2
4
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Sam_Flynn
0
2
4
This is eye opening about the coming end of the world that the CIA kept secret for decades:

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,032
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Additionally, "consensus science" is the precursor to confirmation bias. Another mortal enemy of actual science....
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,142
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Michael Crichton Explains Why There Is ‘no Such Thing as Consensus Science’

Sam_Flynn
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 121
0
2
4
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Sam_Flynn
0
2
4
Saw this the other day.
Little scary.

Talks about the shift in the poles, axis of Earth...and it is near.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,299
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sam_Flynn
Pole shifting.

Just got to run with it.

Scary is a concept.

Cosmic events don't do scary.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,058
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Michael Crichton Explains Why There Is ‘no Such Thing as Consensus Science’

Nonsense, Michael Crichton makes good movies, writes good books, he's very good at the business of sensationalizing science themes, but he does not know what he is talking about regarding consensus science.  

Science is no longer the realm of the standout genius like Einstein, those days are over, it is a collaborative endeavor, primary to the process is publication, peer review, conferences, and debates, all intended to establish the requisite collaboration and consensus.   The final quark to be discovered was the Top Quark in 1995, over 450 scientists were credited with the discovery, that's just how science is done today.  This is not to say the consensus of the scientific community is always right, the truth goes marching on so to speak, but consensus is foundational to the practice and study of science.

With the politicization of science has come science denial, and fundamental to science denial is discrediting scientific consensus, fake news becomes fake science, scientific consensus becomes a vast conspiracy and all that.  You can always find a single whack job scientist to support whatever whack job position you want to take, look at the Institute for Creation Research, those clowns are scientists, there are scientists in the Flat Earth Society, I'm sure you could find a scientist to support the idea that Trump can change the trajectory of a hurricane with a Sharpie pen, wind turbines kill whales, nuking hurricanes, injecting bleach to cure Covid, Jewish Space Lasers start fires in California, etc.  
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,032
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
peer review...
Peer review is the opposite of consensus. It only takes one person through peer review to debunk a hypothesis.

The final quark to be discovered was the Top Quark in 1995, over 450 scientists were credited with the discovery, that's just how science is done today. 
So if it was discovered by one guy, it wouldn't be science?

I think we are done here.