Science is wrong, trust me, here's a dudes blog to prove it.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Global Warming is over.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by cale View PostScience is wrong, trust me, here's a dudes blog to prove it.
So the actual NOAA measurements are wrong? You're right? Care to explain?
Your side of this argument does not hold the ethical high ground. So far basically nothing predicted, the doom and destruction, no arctic ice, none of it has come to pass. You do have models though.Last edited by gwb72tii; 04-26-2019, 11:13 AM.“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
Originally posted by gwb72tii View Postkinda expected this response.
So the actual NOAA measurements are wrong? You're right? Care to explain?
Your side of this argument does not hold the ethical high ground. So far basically nothing predicted, the doom and destruction, no arctic ice, none of it has come to pass. You do have models though.
4" here in Miami area since 1996
Miami Waterkeeper is a South Florida Environmental Group that advocates for Swimmable, Drinkable, Fishable water for all. Working on sea rise, water pollution, coral reef protection, and water issue education.
10" in Hawaii since 1950
Permafrost is melting in Alaska
Walrus have no place to breed/rest after feeding
Given a choice between giving birth on land or sea ice, Pacific walrus mothers most often choose ice.
100,000 crammed in a small piece of land due to lack of ice, falling to their deaths, even
Here's what that shocking, brutal scene from the Netflix nature documentary "Our Planet" really means.
You can argue whether or not humans are the cause, but complete denial of global warming, ice melting, and sea rise? ha
Comment
-
yeah, alaska is particularly depressing to me for some reason.
trees are falling over. because their root systems depended on the permafrost they grow into for support, and it's disappearing.
say that one again. the permafrost, named that because it is *permanent*, is disappearing.past:
1989 325is (learner shitbox)
1986 325e (turbo dorito)
1991 318ic (5-lug ITB)
1985 323i baur
current:
1995 M3 (suspension, 17x9/255-40, borla)
Comment
-
It's obviously because God wants Russia to take over the western world.Need parts now? Need them cheap? steve@blunttech.com
Chief Sales Officer, Midwest Division—Blunt Tech Industries
www.gutenparts.com
One stop shopping for NEW, USED and EURO PARTS!
Comment
-
Originally posted by z31maniac View PostIt's obviously because God wants Russia to take over the western world.Last edited by ELVA164; 04-30-2019, 10:41 PM.Interested in vintage cars? Ever thought about racing one? Info, photos, videos, and more can be found at www.michaelsvintageracing.com!
Elva Courier build thread here!
Comment
-
The whole flaw with the GW types is that they presume everything can be preserved through man's will alone. Good example is naming a piece of frozen tundra, permafrost. It's an arrogant name, derived from man in the first place. Nature certainly doesn't believe in permanence...why the fuck should we?
The idea that nature is good and human is bad denies that we are part of nature in the first place. It's nihilism legislated. It's dangerous, homicidal and cruel.
For all the folks who believe in evolution rationally, you deny that humans and the rest of nature can cope with climate change. You really should question your commitment to evolution as an ethos because that is a massive contradiction none of you can deal with.
Or...and this is much more cynical...what if the global elite simply want to reduce the standard of living of the plebs and prevent third world countries from rising out of poverty so as to consolidate their power? I mean, the rich can afford carbon taxes. It will never hurt them. It only puts undue burden on normal families and third world countries that will be denied the opportunity to raise up their citizens standard of living. It's no different than Del Monte farms using the power of legislation to impose regulations on their own industry to squash smaller farms out of existence.
All of this in the name of something that all the scientists know without a doubt humans cannot convincingly move the needle. The course corrections they suggest do not do anything to help the environment.
So what this comes down to is this: do you trust that humans and nature can adapt to anything? Do you believe that all humans have value? Do you believe that people merely trying to not starve to death is reason enough to "ruin" the environment? Do you believe in freedom?
I think we need to bring back a threat of a thermonuclear holocaust so we can have a real issue to worry about and one that will actually have a permanent impact on the environment.
You people are soft.
Sent from my Moto Z (2) using TapatalkSi vis pacem, para bellum.
New Hawtness: 1995 540i/6 Claptrap
Defunct too: Cirrusblau m30 Project
Defunct (sold): Alta Vista
79 Bronco SHTF Build
Comment
-
Originally posted by marshallnoise View PostThe whole flaw with the GW types is that they presume everything can be preserved through man's will alone. Good example is naming a piece of frozen tundra, permafrost. It's an arrogant name, derived from man in the first place. Nature certainly doesn't believe in permanence...why the fuck should we?
We're talking about over 10000 climate scientists, spanning every country on the globe, almost entirely saying the same things. Only in america is this a political issue, and only in america is there denial.
The common number is 97% of scientists say the same thing. Yet you have an entire political party going against science. If you went to 100 doctors, and 97 of them said you have cancer, but 3 said you didn't, which would you believe? Naturally the 97. What GW and his side does is say "well, those 97 doctors are Democrats so they must be lying". When it has nothing to do with political affiliation.
For all the folks who believe in evolution rationally, you deny that humans and the rest of nature can cope with climate change. You really should question your commitment to evolution as an ethos because that is a massive contradiction none of you can deal with.
All of this in the name of something that all the scientists know without a doubt humans cannot convincingly move the needle. The course corrections they suggest do not do anything to help the environment.
Comment
-
About that 97%
Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.
But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
and that doesn’t cover the generalized question he posed, which left out the phrase man made.
Comment
-
Originally posted by naplesE30 View PostAbout that 97%
Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.
But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
and that doesn’t cover the generalized question he posed, which left out the phrase man made.
Cale will go ballistic for bringing up the fallacy of the vaunted 97%
Anyone who brings up ANY kind of consensus in science understands nothing about science“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
Originally posted by gwb72tii View PostNow you’ve gone and done it
Cale will go ballistic for bringing up the fallacy of the vaunted 97%
Anyone who brings up ANY kind of consensus in science understands nothing about science
Scientific consensus is a real thing, and has nothing to do with the scientific process.
There is scientific consensus about the water cycle. There is scientific consensus about the speed of light (in a vacuum, unaffected by extreme cooling etc.). There is scientific consensus about the laws of thermodynamics. Might they all be proven wrong someday? Probably not, but potentially. Doesn't mean there isn't a consensus, and doesn't mean that consensus is somehow unscientific.Interested in vintage cars? Ever thought about racing one? Info, photos, videos, and more can be found at www.michaelsvintageracing.com!
Elva Courier build thread here!
Comment
-
Oh, here's a relevant one: the effectiveness of vaccines for containing disease is a matter of scientific consensus, but that doesn't stop people from believing otherwise.Interested in vintage cars? Ever thought about racing one? Info, photos, videos, and more can be found at www.michaelsvintageracing.com!
Elva Courier build thread here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by naplesE30 View PostAbout that 97%...
Originally posted by ELVA164 View PostOh, here's a relevant one: the effectiveness of vaccines for containing disease is a matter of scientific consensus, but that doesn't stop people from believing otherwise."A good memory for quotes combined with a poor memory for attribution can lead to a false sense of originality."
-----------------------------------------
91 318is Turbo Sold
87 325 Daily driver Sold
06 4.8is X5
06 Mtec X3
05 4.4i X5 Sold
92 325ic Sold & Re-purchased
90 325i Sold
97 328is Sold
01 323ci Sold
92 325i Sold
83 528e Totaled
98 328i Sold
93 325i Sold
Comment
Comment