The Entrepreneur Forum | Startups | Entrepreneurship | Starting a Business | Motivation | Success

OFF-TOPIC Should we combat climate change?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kak

Who is John Galt?
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Jan 23, 2011
5,485
22,190
4,554
Beware of experts!! They are a mental shortcut most people take. Experts are wrong constantly, we just ignore when they are.
Do you have a reputable source for this?:rofl:

Agreed. Experts are a logical fallacy. Who made them an expert? An expert on experts?
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

Last edited:

JScott

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Speedway Pass
Aug 24, 2007
4,173
7,847
1,731
Beware of experts!! They are a mental shortcut most people take.
I'm definitely guilty of this...

For example, when I'm sick, I call a doctor.
When I have legal issues, I call a lawyer.
When my house is on fire, I call the firefighters.
When my air conditioning is broken, I call the HVAC company.
When my car breaks, I take it to an auto-mechanic.
When I need my taxes done, I ask my CPA.
When I fly somewhere, I expect a pilot to be flying the plane

All these experts that I trust... I'm such a sucker! ;)
 

GIlman

Still Gilman
FASTLANE INSIDER
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 16, 2014
307
1,483
419
I'm definitely guilty of this...

For example, when I'm sick, I call a doctor.
When I have legal issues, I call a lawyer.
When my house is on fire, I call the firefighters.
When my air conditioning is broken, I call the HVAC company.
When my car breaks, I take it to an auto-mechanic.
When I need my taxes done, I ask my CPA.
When I fly somewhere, I expect a pilot to be flying the plane

All these experts that I trust... I'm such a sucker! ;)
I am one of these so called doctor experts you refer to. I can tell you that we are wrong about things all the time. Experts just guess better based on experience. Doesn’t make us always right. the more theoretical the opinion is based on, the lower the margin of error, and the more likely the expert is to be wrong.
 
Last edited:

JScott

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Speedway Pass
Aug 24, 2007
4,173
7,847
1,731
I am one of these so called doctor experts you refer to. I can tell you that we are wrong about things all the time. Experts just guess better based on experience. Doesn’t make us always right. the more theoretical the opinion is based on, the higher the margin of error, and the more likely the expert is to be wrong.
I don't know anyone who is always right. I don't expect anyone to always be right.

That said, I expect experts to be right more often than non-experts (by definition), so I will weight input from an expert source more heavily than I will weight input from a non-expert source.

For example, if I had a medical issue, would you say I should trust you over a non-doctor? And would you say that I should put more trust in you some of the time? Most of the time? 100% of the time?
 

Chairman

New Contributor
Feb 18, 2019
13
10
16
Australia
Climate change is essentially communism with a few layers of bullshit on top. It's about wealth redistribution away from western countries and has literally nothing to do with the environment.

 

lao

Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Oct 1, 2019
16
21
17
I'm glad there are some sensible people in the midst of the sensory deprived primates.
"Shut up brain, this is not about Three Wise Monkeys and has nothing to do with the thread"
Sorry about that.

Climate-friendly solution research >= Repairing current damage (Personal opinion)
Yet, i believe it depends on the magnitude of preemptive innovation/cleanup strategy

Look to Bill and Melinda Gates, not John Doe
A couple with success, knowledge, connections, intelligence, freedom and the will to do good.

If the performed action betters the conscious life experience of living creatures, it's worth doing.
Does carbon dioxide scrub directly or indirectly better the lives of conscious animals (humans included)? Factor in current estimated "life value" and future estimated "life value" through scaling and ripple effects.

It is hard for anyone of us to know with certainty what our actions will do to the planet, galaxy and universe long term, but we can understand ethics, we can understand hurt and joy. It's easier for us to see the consequences by basing it on ethics in our own lives. Will putting a large rock in the middle of the road increase the chance of someone crashing their car? Yes, most likely. Would you want to crash your car because someone else placed a rock in the middle of the road? No? Then don't place a rock in the middle of the road. Yes, there might be other factors depending on whether or not you should put a rock in the road. Now try philosophizing like that, just exchange rock in the road with choking on oil, drowning due to constriction or dying because you lose your food source.

And what other way should one discuss this topic? If there is no conscious feeling living things around to experience our magical planet in the past, present or future, what's the point in caring about what happens to it? Everything is chemicals, the only difference is we know that some chemical compositions poison/damage other chemical compositions. We know some of those compositions can experience happiness and some of those compositions we are not sure can experience... anything.
 

Kak

Who is John Galt?
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Jan 23, 2011
5,485
22,190
4,554
I am one of these so called doctor experts you refer to. I can tell you that we are wrong about things all the time. Experts just guess better based on experience. Doesn’t make us always right. the more theoretical the opinion is based on, the lower the margin of error, and the more likely the expert is to be wrong.
I don't know anyone who is always right. I don't expect anyone to always be right.

That said, I expect experts to be right more often than non-experts (by definition), so I will weight input from an expert source more heavily than I will weight input from a non-expert source.

For example, if I had a medical issue, would you say I should trust you over a non-doctor? And would you say that I should put more trust in you some of the time? Most of the time? 100% of the time?
You both make sense. But there is an obvious bias from both sides of this argument.

Obviously we have given experts some level of authority on this issue, the problem is that the experts are biased too. THERIN lies the fallacy. It is like believing one is an expert and another is to be dismissed. My question is why is the opposing viewpoint to be dismissed? Because you disagree with it personally? Because the other expert says something different than this expert? Or is it that no one's expertise has found the definitive truth on a matter? The reason for dismissing one over the other needs to be rooted in logic. I am dismissing them all on this argument.

My take. There is no such thing as an expert on a politically or an emotionally charged subject matter. This doesn't have to be a political battle. Obviously, it is bad to pollute and we need to minimize the damage we do to the environment.

On the other hand, on an elemental level, there is nothing on this planet that wasn't here 1000 years ago. Notwithstanding meteorite for you nitpickers. Things just get changed around.

I personally believe, given freedom to do so, 100 years from now, clean sustainable living will be the baseline world standard by choice, not by order. Why? Because we the people have an appetite for it and, at least for now, it is profitable to create the tools and tech that get us there.
 
Last edited:

csalvato

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
May 5, 2014
1,514
4,255
1,016
34
Rocky Mountain West
My take. There is no such thing as an expert on a politically or an emotionally charged subject matter. This doesn't have to be a political battle. Obviously, it is bad to pollute and we need to minimize the damage we do to the environment.
The reason this issue (and similar issues) are so sticky is because it's only quasi-political.

When it comes to the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, there are undeniable facts of physics that get conflated with policies on how to deal with these facts.

For example:

FACT – Increasing CO2 in a planet's atmosphere increases heat retention.
FACT – Increasing heat retention causes the polar ice caps to melt
FACT - Human machinery is releasing a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

POLICY - Let's tax people who create more CO2 than others
POLICY - Let's heavily regulate filters on any machinery that creates CO2
POLICY - Let's outlaw certain types of power plants.

On facts, the experts are hard-lined. The facts are the facts are the facts. They cannot change. There are people who understand those facts better than anyone else, and the underlying truths that make them a reality. These experts should carry a heavy weighting.

On policy (and on soft sciences like psychology), the experts are much "softer". There are no facts. There are opinions and trends that are ever-changing. These experts should maybe be considered, but only as a means to formulate your own opinion based on the hard-lined facts.

The underlying principle here is to avoid conflating fact with policy/opinion.

Most people who are arguing that climate change is not happening clearly don't understand the fundamental, unchanging, unwaivering facts.

So when @GIlman says don't trust experts, he's right. You don't want to follow any idiot who has somehow gained authority based solely on his opinion. That also makes the follower an idiot. We should be pursuing the knowledge of these facts before forming any opinions.

But when @JScott says we should trust experts, he's also right. We should be trusting experts to help us find the unwaivering facts so we can formulate our own opinion. We need to stand on the shoulders of these giants.

Just reading through this thread, you can see many people who are relying on other people's opinions (not facts) to form their own opinion.

To me, it's no surprise that the folks who seek out facts (i.e. @JScott and @GIlman) are doing better in their career and business than those who are seeking out opinions.
 

JScott

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Speedway Pass
Aug 24, 2007
4,173
7,847
1,731
Obviously we have given experts some level of authority on this issue, the problem is that the experts are biased too. THERIN lies the fallacy. It is like believing one is an expert and another is to be dismissed.
A couple things here:

- First, I have no proof one way or the other on this question. Just like I don't have any proof to offer the flat earthers when I debate with them. I can only go on the peer-reviewed science, the data and the evidence that's out there. Maybe the earth is flat, but until the "experts" (peer-reviewed researchers and their data) change their stance on this whole globe thing, I'm going to stick with the experts. I recognize that's not going to change the viewpoint of the flat earthers (they also claim that NASA and the scientists that push the idea of the earth being a globe are biased). But, just because there are two sides arguing doesn't mean both sides have equally powerful arguments or equally valid data.

- Likewise, if you look at the peer reviewed science on climate change, the experts don't disagree. There are a couple outliers, but the vast majority of peer reviewed science supports global warming and man's participation (to some extent). The peer reviewed research doesn't all agree on the extent of man's participation in warming (some scientists believe there are converging factors, with man-generated factors being just one component), but I haven't seen any peer-reviewed science in a long time that has argued that global warming is not happening or that there is no man-made component. Perhaps there's some out there, but if there is, it's a very small percentage.

- You suggest that the scientists are biased, but what evidence do you have to support that? I don't know ANY scientists (and I know quite a few published researchers across a wide variety of subject matter) who would put politics above their research. These are people who have spent their lives/careers trying to advance science for the good of humanity, and to throw it all away for the sake of potentially increasing their grant money is not something that most of these researchers (that I know) would ever consider doing. I'm not saying that there aren't political factions at war here, but most of the research coming out of these politically motivated studies is not peer reviewed. Am I saying that there's nobody scattered in there without a political agenda? Of course not! There will always be some rogue "agents" on both sides who are seeking personal gain, but most scientists I know aren't like that. And I'd argue that most, in general, aren't, simply based on the mentality of this group of people.

- When I look at debates like this and try to sort through what is true and what is not true, I often will start by seeing what points each side is willing to concede to the other side. Oftentimes, neither side is willing to concede anything, so where there are concessions, that's likely a good indication that those concessions are true. The biggest "concession" I've seen in this debate is that the oil companies themselves did research 40 years ago that substantiated the claims being made today. Back in the mid-1970s, Exxon Mobile scientists claimed broad general agreement for man-made climate change through the burning of fossil fuels. And despite their efforts to argue against climate change (either man-made or not) for the past 20 years, former Exxon Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson (yes, that Rex Tillerson)
claimed back in 2007 that evidence pointed to fossil fuel contributions to climate change.

When Exxon Mobile itself and its CEO are willing to admit that climate change (and man's contribution to it) are real, that tells me everything I need to know. Literally, the single most likely company on the planet to deny climate change has admitted it (both their researchers and their CEO) on several occasions.

What motivation would Exxon Mobile have to EVER claim man-made climate change was real if it weren't?

My question is why is the opposing viewpoint to be dismissed? Because you disagree with it personally? Because the other expert says something different than this expert? Or is it that no one's expertise has found the definitive truth on a matter? The reason for dismissing one over the other needs to be rooted in logic. I am dismissing them all on this argument.
I've had anti-vaxxers use this argument when trying to convince me. I've had flat earthers use this argument with me as well. In fact, I find it amazing how many flat earthers will literally state that they have experts/scientists who agree them, and that's enough to convince much of their "cult" that their argument is just as reasonable as those of stupid "globers"...

Like I tell them -- when the peer reviewed science supports those theories, I'll change my mind.

I have no vested interest in believing in climate change. If anything, it will cost me a lot of money in taxes and regulation. I would prefer it not be real. And I'd love for it to turn out not to be. But, hoping and wishing doesn't change the scientific consensus, and saying that there are experts on both sides is simply false equivalence.

All that said, I don't have any of my own peer reviewed data and can't provide any additional support to either side of the argument, so I don't have anything else to add. But again, until the time when I have my own data, I will simply align my view with the peer-reviewed science. As that changes, my view will change as well. And I'd love for all the scientists to be wrong on this...

That's all I've got...
 
Last edited:

Chairman

New Contributor
Feb 18, 2019
13
10
16
Australia
The reason this issue (and similar issues) are so sticky is because it's only quasi-political.

When it comes to the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, there are undeniable facts of physics that get conflated with policies on how to deal with these facts.

For example:

FACT – Increasing CO2 in a planet's atmosphere increases heat retention.
FACT – Increasing heat retention causes the polar ice caps to melt
FACT - Human machinery is releasing a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

POLICY - Let's tax people who create more CO2 than others
POLICY - Let's heavily regulate filters on any machinery that creates CO2
POLICY - Let's outlaw certain types of power plants.

On facts, the experts are hard-lined. The facts are the facts are the facts. They cannot change. There are people who understand those facts better than anyone else, and the underlying truths that make them a reality. These experts should carry a heavy weighting.

On policy (and on soft sciences like psychology), the experts are much "softer". There are no facts. There are opinions and trends that are ever-changing. These experts should maybe be considered, but only as a means to formulate your own opinion based on the hard-lined facts.

The underlying principle here is to avoid conflating fact with policy/opinion.

Most people who are arguing that climate change is not happening clearly don't understand the fundamental, unchanging, unwaivering facts.

So when @GIlman says don't trust experts, he's right. You don't want to follow any idiot who has somehow gained authority based solely on his opinion. That also makes the follower an idiot. We should be pursuing the knowledge of these facts before forming any opinions.

But when @JScott says we should trust experts, he's also right. We should be trusting experts to help us find the unwaivering facts so we can formulate our own opinion. We need to stand on the shoulders of these giants.

Just reading through this thread, you can see many people who are relying on other people's opinions (not facts) to form their own opinion.

To me, it's no surprise that the folks who seek out facts (i.e. @JScott and @GIlman) are doing better in their career and business than those who are seeking out opinions.
ROFL what a lot of poppycock. You can type the word 'fact' in caps a million times, it doesnt make it true. The experts are hardlined eh?

LOL no, they are actually split down the middle.


Here we’ve got a letter from 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts basically chastising NASA for their activist stance on this nonsense because if (when) it is proven that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, it will make them look like shit and their reputations (and that of NASA) will be ruined.

49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change

Notice how these esteemed people at the top of their field clearly state: “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”

Here's another list of 85 climate scientists who publicly disagree with consensus. It states “A system is in place that makes it incredibly difficult, almost impossible, for scientists to take a public stance against AGW — their funding and opportunities are shutoff, their credibility and character smeared, and their safety sometimes compromised.”


I also liked this article, they used a fairly strict criteria to determine the top 10 climate change consensus scientists and the top 5 skeptic scientists


The thing that stood out the most to me is that pretty much all of the skeptic scientists had been bullied, pressured, threatened and ostracized for their beliefs – several of them actually going to the extent of resigning prestigious roles or even retiring to escape the retribution of their colleagues and harebrained climate activists. We don’t hear about climate consensus scientists losing their jobs, receiving death threats, having grants and funding withdrawn, quite the contrary those cunts are lauded as being moral and righteous and saving the planet. I wonder why that would be? If the science is settled and the consensus is correct in their assumptions, why would they feel the need to harass and bully anyone that disagrees with them?

Reminds me of how it is illegal to dispute the holocaust in many European countries really.

If your supposition was correct that climatewang is actually a thing was correct, the so-called experts wouldnt need to fudge their data.
 

JScott

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Speedway Pass
Aug 24, 2007
4,173
7,847
1,731
ROFL what a lot of poppycock. You can type the word 'fact' in caps a million times, it doesnt make it true. The experts are hardlined eh?

LOL no, they are actually split down the middle.

I started reading your response and got to your first source...

Maybe you don't realize it, but NAS is a conservative political organization masquerading as a think-tank. It's funded 100% by politically conservative groups.

This is the perfect example of what Kak mentioned above -- politics permeating science.

Sorry, but I stopped reading after that...
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

csalvato

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
May 5, 2014
1,514
4,255
1,016
34
Rocky Mountain West
ROFL what a lot of poppycock. You can type the word 'fact' in caps a million times, it doesnt make it true. The experts are hardlined eh?

LOL no, they are actually split down the middle.


Here we’ve got a letter from 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts basically chastising NASA for their activist stance on this nonsense because if (when) it is proven that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, it will make them look like shit and their reputations (and that of NASA) will be ruined.

49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change

Notice how these esteemed people at the top of their field clearly state: “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”

Here's another list of 85 climate scientists who publicly disagree with consensus. It states “A system is in place that makes it incredibly difficult, almost impossible, for scientists to take a public stance against AGW — their funding and opportunities are shutoff, their credibility and character smeared, and their safety sometimes compromised.”


I also liked this article, they used a fairly strict criteria to determine the top 10 climate change consensus scientists and the top 5 skeptic scientists


The thing that stood out the most to me is that pretty much all of the skeptic scientists had been bullied, pressured, threatened and ostracized for their beliefs – several of them actually going to the extent of resigning prestigious roles or even retiring to escape the retribution of their colleagues and harebrained climate activists. We don’t hear about climate consensus scientists losing their jobs, receiving death threats, having grants and funding withdrawn, quite the contrary those cunts are lauded as being moral and righteous and saving the planet. I wonder why that would be? If the science is settled and the consensus is correct in their assumptions, why would they feel the need to harass and bully anyone that disagrees with them?

Reminds me of how it is illegal to dispute the holocaust in many European countries really.

If your supposition was correct that climatewang is actually a thing was correct, the so-called experts wouldnt need to fudge their data.
Since these words will fall on your deaf ears, they aren't really for you, but for other people reading, trying to learn how to learn, and learn how to differentiate fact from opinion.

@Chairman is doing nothing but proving my point.

Notice how the conversation shifted from fundamental facts of physics back to opinions that only confirm an existing belief. None of these sources focus on facts: they focus on opinions and politics (e.g. how people have been allegedly ostracized).

Notice, also, how @Chairman is imposing an agenda on me to which I never associated.

I don't pretend to know or believe that climate change is meaningfully impacted by human contribution. All I did was list a fact of science – human machines release CO2 into the atmosphere.

The other two are also easily verifiable facts with simple at-home physics experiments. Take a bottle of soda, fill it with soil and water and observe how the temperature and pressure within the bottle is impacted.

Spoiler: the temperature and pressure increase because the gas is heating and expanding, but cannot escape due to the barrier created by the plastic.

CO2 acts like the plastic in our atmosphere. We know this because, if it didn't we'd all be dead. This is another fact.

But somehow my facts became non-facts because some scientists have been "ostracized" because of their beliefs. Nevermind that even on the JPL and NASA website (these evil organizations), it clearly recnogizes that scientists are still debating whether or not this is caused by humans:

Scientists debate whether the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, and if human activity is the principal cause.
Source: https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1hiac1.pdf

We can also just read in a book about the temperature and atmospheric composition of Venus to see an extreme example of what happens when CO2 crosses a threshold in a planetary atmosphere.

It is composed primarily of carbon dioxide and is much denser and hotter than that of Earth. The temperature at the surface is 740 K (467 °C, 872 °F), and the pressure is 93 bar (9.3 MPa), roughly the pressure found 900 m (3,000 ft) underwater on Earth.
Source: Atmosphere of Venus - Wikipedia

Seems consistent with our soda bottle experiment, right?

So for anyone reading along, take note. This is not how you formulate reality-based conclusions. You don't read articles with people's opinions on a situation.

Get down to basic facts. Things that will be repeatable 100/100 times. Two plus two is always four.

Find those truths and separate them from everything else. Then, formulate your opinion on everything else based on those facts.

If you don't, you'll be like @Champion. Angry, inflammatory, and ultimately wrong. And, in all likelihood, poor in every way.

No offense intended @Champion.
 

csalvato

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
May 5, 2014
1,514
4,255
1,016
34
Rocky Mountain West
Reminds me of how it is illegal to dispute the holocaust in many European countries really.
And OMG, I just saw this. The holocaust did happen, and even intimating that it didn't shines a light on your overall level of ignorance. Talking to you is an utter waste of time.
 

csalvato

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
May 5, 2014
1,514
4,255
1,016
34
Rocky Mountain West
I agree with just about all of your post, but this hit a funny bone for me:

All that said, I don't have any of my own peer reviewed data and can't provide any additional support to either side of the argument, so I don't have anything else to add. But again, until the time when I have my own data, I will simply align my view with the peer-reviewed science. As that changes, my view will change as well. And I'd love for all the scientists to be wrong on this...
For background, I briefly worked as a scientist (not in this field, but in optics) and had my work published in a journal (under my PI, of course).

Following that, I worked for 5 years selling biomedical research equipment (for general physiology and neuroscience, in particular). I consulted with hundreds of labs all around the world, working with scientists to craft their experiments, collect their data, and analyze it.

When it comes to studies, in general, I tend to focus on the Method and Results section of the paper. Anything that is a conclusion (in the abstract or conclusions section) is to be taken into consideration, but understanding that it's the researcher's opinion on what the data/results show.

It's really up to the reader to determine whether or not they agree with that conclusion based on the methods and results section.

The reason I say this is because scientific consensus on things that are not hard-lined facts can be wrong. A good example comes from the nutrition space...

There's lots of hard-lined facts in nutrition: ATP is turned into ADP and energy is released that powers muscle contractions. Glycolysis from glucose causes more ATP to be made. That glucose comes from carbs. Hurrah.

But there's a lot of research that just looks at overall trends in small sets of data, then draws wild conclusions. That's why one year eggs cause heart attacks, and another year they don't. Why red wine is dangerous...oh nevermind, it's fine.

It's just something to keep in mind when assessing scientific consensus. It's usually correct, but it can be wrong.

When it comes to the data and consensus on climate change being a thing (whether or not it's caused by humans), that's all based on solid hard facts and logical conclusions. IMO that consensus is resting pretty heavily on basic, hard-lined science.

When it comes to cholesterol clogging arteries...nahhhhh...
 

Chairman

New Contributor
Feb 18, 2019
13
10
16
Australia
Maybe you don't realize it, but NAS is a conservative political organization masquerading as a think-tank. It's funded 100% by politically conservative groups.
Which is somehow meant to have less veracity than the government and (((leftist))) parties funding climate change propaganda? I think not. If you can prove the statement wrong than do so, if all you can do is attack the source then it's safe to assume you dont have an argument.

This is the perfect example of what Kak mentioned above -- politics permeating science.
No, manipulating data, publishing fraudulent data, preventing other scientists from reviewing that data and conspiring to hide that data is politics permeating science. You know, like how the scientists in charge of this fraud have been proven to have done over and over again.

Sorry, but I stopped reading after that...
Cool story, tells me all I need to know about you that you couldnt take the time to read but still found the time to reply.
 

Okraz1

Contributor
Aug 31, 2015
31
64
112
21
The idea that the planet, and indeed the whole ecosystem, has survived multiple die off events, at least one of which was from a couple mile wide asteroid slamming into us at tens of thousands of miles per hour, which basically set the entire planet on fire... but we'll be undone by cow farts and gas guzzlers... is absurd to me.

This is obviously a play by the powers that should not be to siphon off even more wealth, backed up by scientists who are locked into protecting their own self interest (no grant money if you're a "climate denier").

EVEN IF the claims are correct, the proposed solutions a) won't avert disaster and b) will only result in people dying right now. We know that they won't avert disaster because government has no interest in solving the problem. We know this for an absolute fact. If the problem were solved, then thousands of bureaucrats, who otherwise have no useful skills to offer, would be out of a cushy job with a guaranteed pension. Solving problems has never, and will never be, in the interest of government.

The proposed solutions are inevitably a wealth transfer, in the form of more taxation of wealthy western nations. This will result in higher energy prices, higher food prices, and higher prices overall. This taxes an otherwise already strained middle and lower class, many of whom have to choose between heating and cooling, food, shelter, and transportation. Given that people, often elderly, die in heat waves or blizzards, even with cheap energy, we know that deaths due to weather extremes will only go up in the short term. But hey, they're old so f&*( 'em right?
Based.

The sheeple engaging in their militant climate activism are only shooting themselves in the foot. All their action supported on the stilts of authoritarian opinions.

Just because you read a study, it doesn't mean you understand the subject. You're simply placing your trust in someone. Science is very similar to religion in this regard.

Theres no way of knowing the result of any proposed counter measures either, beyond the immediate additional strain on the world population whose governments implement them.

Sure, maybe you extend the expectancy of the human race for another millennium or maybe you drive humanity into greater despair - who knows.
 

Chairman

New Contributor
Feb 18, 2019
13
10
16
Australia
Since these words will fall on your deaf ears, they aren't really for you, but for other people reading, trying to learn how to learn, and learn how to differentiate fact from opinion.
Except you havent posted any facts, you just said you did and then repeated that you did over and over as if to convince anyone stupid enough that you did in hopes no one would be awake enough to see through your empty rhetoric.


@Chairman is doing nothing but proving my point.
You didnt have a point, you are just spouting propaganda that might impress normies but doesnt impress me or anyone else with a brain reading this.

Notice how the conversation shifted from fundamental facts of physics back to opinions that only confirm an existing belief. None of these sources focus on facts: they focus on opinions and politics (e.g. how people have been allegedly ostracized).
Nice word salad. You still seem to be stuck on screeching IT'S FACT, IT'S FACT, FUNDAMENTAL FACTS, HURR DURR SCIENCE" thinking you will fool people into believing you are posting facts when you aren't. I see the irony of you blindly believing that your "experts" are the ones with all the facts while dismissing the experts who disagree with them is lost on you. There was plenty of facts contained in the blog post in my first reply.

Of course you dont have an answer to the myriad points made within, choosing instead to inflate your own ego by pretending to care about the learning skills of other readers with your pompous nonsense. I think they'll be OK without your help since you are clearly unable to differentiate between facts and opinion yourself.

Notice, also, how @Chairman is imposing an agenda on me to which I never associated.
No, what I noticed is you very clearly imposing your own agenda and then trying to grease your way out of standing behind it with clever wordplay, as well as crying victim now you were called out on it. DID YOU SEE HOW HE IMPOSED HIS AGENDA ON ME?! ROFL maybe call a waaahmbulance.

You dont even have the courage of your own convictions, good luck convincing anyone else mate.

I don't pretend to know or believe that climate change is meaningfully impacted by human contribution. All I did was list a fact of science – human machines release CO2 into the atmosphere.
Ahh, disingenuous as well as a liar.

FACT – Increasing CO2 in a planet's atmosphere increases heat retention.
FACT – Increasing heat retention causes the polar ice caps to melt
FACT - Human machinery is releasing a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
So according to you, "human machinery" (as opposed to animal machinery or elf machinery LOL, you may as well have just said "humans" but of course you prefer to obfuscate because you are intellectually dishonest") releases CO2 into the atmosphere (true) that increases heat retention in the atmosphere (false) and hence causes the polar ice caps to melt (false).

If you dont know that climate change is meaningfully impacted by humans then you dont have a point, which I've already covered.

All I did was list a fact of science – human machines release CO2 into the atmosphere.
No, you clearly stated that human created CO2 increases heat retention in the atmosphere which in turn melts the polar ice caps. It's almost like you have totally forgotten that your previous post is there for all to see LOL. I mean if you're gonna lie, at least dont make it so ridiculously easy to refute man.

The other two are also easily verifiable facts with simple at-home physics experiments. Take a bottle of soda, fill it with soil and water and observe how the temperature and pressure within the bottle is impacted.
An extremely complex science that has had billions of dollars of funding from scientists all over the world who have spent decades learning about it to understand can essentially be boiled down to a 9th grade science experiment :rofl: Please my sides cant take much more of this.

Spoiler: the temperature and pressure increase because the gas is heating and expanding, but cannot escape due to the barrier created by the plastic.

CO2 acts like the plastic in our atmosphere. We know this because, if it didn't we'd all be dead. This is another fact.
Yes the atmosphere is the same as the plastic in a coke bottle bwahahahahaha wow.

But somehow my facts became non-facts because some scientists have been "ostracized" because of their beliefs.
No, your non-facts are non-facts because:

a) You aren't a climate scientist and have a less than pedestrian understanding of this subject and
b) The nonsense you are spouting is hotly contested by some of the greatest minds on the planet, so essentially your "facts" boil down "I know three fifths of F*ck all about what we are talking about, but my scientists are better than yours so nyuh". Truly.

Clearly the point I was making went over your head so I will attempt to simplify: Good science requires open dialogue and debate in order to come to reasonable conclusions as consensus does not equal truth. When one side is not invited to the dialogue and is prevented from entering the debate then you dont have science, you've got a one sided argument that is posited as truth.

This is called propaganda.

Nevermind that even on the JPL and NASA website (these evil organizations), it clearly recnogizes that scientists are still debating whether or not this is caused by humans:

Source: https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1hiac1.pdf
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1hiac1.pdf

ROFL yes I gather 49 ex NASA astronauts and scientists wrote them a letter telling them to STFU because NASA is so impartial on this issue. It's like you arent even trying at this point.

We can also just read in a book about the temperature and atmospheric composition of Venus to see an extreme example of what happens when CO2 crosses a threshold in a planetary atmosphere.

Source: Atmosphere of Venus - Wikipedia

Seems consistent with our soda bottle experiment, right?
Or you know, we can just read the countless peer reviewed studies that prove that CO2 has F*ck all to do with global warming rather than relying on your ridiculous conflations. THE ATMOSPHERE IS JUST LIKE A COKE BOTTLE, VENUS IS JUST LIKE EARTH, MUH POLAR ICE CAPS! LawL

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect


Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas | PSI Intl


So for anyone reading along, take note. This is not how you formulate reality-based conclusions.
Oh I think they got that after watching me pull your ridiculous arguments apart like pocket lint.

You don't read articles with people's opinions on a situation.
Or be foolish enough to believe that climate alarmists only deal in facts while climate skeptics only have "opinions".

Get down to basic facts. Things that will be repeatable 100/100 times. Two plus two is always four.
FACTS FACTS FACTS, DID YOU SEE HOW I POSTED FACTS GUYS? I HAVE THE BEST FACTS. CLIMATE SCIENCE IS AS EASY AS SIMPLE ADDITION! FACTS. :rofl:

Find those truths and separate them from everything else. Then, formulate your opinion on everything else based on those facts.
Accept climatewang as gospel, believe all of the hogwash I just posted disguised as FACTS and then have the same opinion as me. I is smart and wise and will help you to learn about the religion of climatewang.

If you don't, you'll be like @Champion. Angry, inflammatory, and ultimately wrong. And, in all likelihood, poor in every way.

No offense intended @Champion.
Much joy and laughter at your expense, much projecting from you.

I am honestly embarrassed for you.
 

Roli

Gold Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Jun 3, 2015
1,401
2,201
570
There was once a little boy on a small island in the middle of the ocean. He lived there with his family who belonged to one of the tribes on the island.

One day he came to his grandfather and said:

"Grandfather, I was at the market today and I overheard somebody saying that there is an environmental crisis, and if we don't watch out, all the trees will disappear, and I'm very worried!"

His grandfather, an old man with a large round and friendly face, his beard quivered and shook as the laughter rumbled through his body; he answered his grandson.

"Oh my little Pooky! Do not worry of such nonsense talk, the trees are gifts from the gods given to us so that we may build dwellings and boats. To honour them we build our Rongo Rongo statues out of the very trees they gave us.

The trees have been there since the beginning of time, and will be there when we are gone."


The little boy looked at his grandfather's kind face, and felt at ease. He realised his grandfather was right, how could they possibly chop down all the trees? More will grow in their place, he thought.

After many years the boy grew up, had a family of his own, and one day was sitting with his own grandson, who too came to him with some concern.

"Grandfather Pooki! My friends at school tell me that we are in danger!"

"Why child? What is the danger?"
Asked the old man.

"They say that the trees are running out, that we need to be careful how many we chop down!"

The old man laughed the same laugh he had heard all those years ago.

"This nonsense has been going on since I was a child like you. Do not worry, these environmentalists make crazy predictions which never come true. The trees will always be there my child."

This conversation happened every 80 years or so for hundreds of years. With each grandfather telling their grandson that the trees would always be there. Meanwhile the trees were declining, but nobody noticed as the rate was so slight.

Each successive generation saw fewer trees than the last, however this was the norm for them, so they never questioned it.

Then one day.

The trees ran out.

Everybody left and no trees ever grew on the island ever again. All that remained were a bunch of carved heads to remind everyone that whilst the environment is robust. It has not adapted to the kind of havoc the human race can wreak on it, even without the aid of modern technology.

This is the tale of Easter Island and it took place between the 13th and 16th centuries, this is a real story and a real warning.

The predictions will be wrong, right up until the point at which they become correct, and then it will be too late.

28112

375px-Moais,_Isla_de_Pascua._-_panoramio.jpg
 

Kak

Who is John Galt?
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Jan 23, 2011
5,485
22,190
4,554
I started reading your response and got to your first source...

Maybe you don't realize it, but NAS is a conservative political organization masquerading as a think-tank. It's funded 100% by politically conservative groups.

This is the perfect example of what Kak mentioned above -- politics permeating science.

Sorry, but I stopped reading after that...
This is exactly my point, you are proving it by showing your bias as well. You are choosing to align with one set of, soft at best, experts over another.

So what gives them credibility? Liberal orginizations masquerading as think tanks?

That is my point. No one can be trusted to deliver truth to this argument anymore. If I was a scientist, you wouldn't trust me to conduct an experiment because you probably think I'm a hillbilly trumper. And @Chairman probably thinks I'm a liberal.

Why? Because the truth is not fully understood. There is not enough macro data to make a full factual claim and that is why people are beating each other up over this.

What I do know is that a profit motive has solved most of the world's problems that existed 100 or more years ago. That is pretty good data. I have faith that we will do it again here.
 
Last edited:

csalvato

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
May 5, 2014
1,514
4,255
1,016
34
Rocky Mountain West
This is exactly my point, but you are proving it as well, but you are showing your bias as well. You are choosing to align with one set of, soft at best, experts over another.

So what gives them credibility? Liberal orginizations masquerading as think tanks?

That is my point. No one can be trusted to deliver truth to this argument anymore. If I was a scientist, you wouldn't trust me to conduct an experiment because you probably think I'm a hillbilly trumper. And @Chairman probably thinks I'm a liberal.

Why because the truth is not fully understood. There is not enough macro data to make a full factual claim and that is why people are beating each other up over this.

What I do know is that a profit motive has solved most of the world's problems that existed 100 or more years ago. That is pretty good data. I have faith that we will do it again here.
With respect, I believe you are misinterpreting @JScott's rationale here.

I don't want to pretend to know what @JScott is thinking, but everything @JScott has posted so far has been in persuit of facts - looking at the studies to assess where the facts lie.

When facts are refuted by articles (not data) from politically charged sources, it invalidates the argument. That's why @Champion's post is utterly useless here. It's refuting fact with opinions.

I read all three articles @Champion posted, and not a single fact was listed in any of them - just why we shouldn't believe in climate change based on 3 varying opinions.
 

lowtek

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 3, 2015
1,576
5,021
1,280
37
Phoenix, AZ
With respect, I believe you are misinterpreting @JScott's rationale here.

I don't want to pretend to know what @JScott is thinking, but everything @JScott has posted so far has been in persuit of facts - looking at the studies to assess where the facts lie.

When facts are refuted by articles (not data) from politically charged sources, it invalidates the argument. That's why @Champion's post is utterly useless here. It's refuting fact with opinions.

I read all three articles @Champion posted, and not a single fact was listed in any of them - just why we shouldn't believe in climate change based on 3 varying opinions.
Please stop mis-characterizing the debate. Virtually nobody denies that the climate changes.

What is under debate is whether or not humans are the driving factor (which ultimately doesn't matter) ..

And, what to do about it (the real question)?
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

csalvato

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
May 5, 2014
1,514
4,255
1,016
34
Rocky Mountain West
Please stop mis-characterizing the debate. Virtually nobody denies that the climate changes.

What is under debate is whether or not humans are the driving factor (which ultimately doesn't matter) ..

And, what to do about it (the real question)?
I apologize for the loose language here:

just why we shouldn't believe in climate change based on 3 varying opinions.
What I meant was climate change caused by human activity.

With that in mind, how am I mischaracterizing the debate?

It's pretty clear from all my posts that I don't know (and believe no one knows) whether or not humans are the driving factor.

Anyone who has a firm belief one way or the other is just that: an opinion-formed belief. Not a fact.

Regardless, the misclassification of opinion-as-fact is causing people to spew vitriol (both in this thread and externally), which is driving many level-headed "climate denying" scientists out of the profession they love...

That's the only argument I'm making here. It's a meta-argument because it transcends this topic.

That, and the argument that we should be combating climate change whether caused by us or not – because we know that's happening and presenting an potential existential threat. And not through policy, but through profit-driven action as @Kak has mentioned several times.
 
Last edited:

lowtek

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 3, 2015
1,576
5,021
1,280
37
Phoenix, AZ
I apologize for the loose language here:



What I meant was climate change caused by human activity.

With that in mind, how am I mischaracterizing the debate?

It's pretty clear from all my posts that I don't know (and believe no one knows) whether or not humans are the driving factor.

Anyone who has a firm belief one way or the other is just that: an opinion-formed belief. Not a fact.

Regardless, the misclassification of opinion-as-fact is causing people to spew vitriol (both in this thread and externally), which is driving many level-headed "climate denying" scientists out of the profession they love...

That's the only argument I'm making here. It's a meta-argument because it transcends this topic.

That, and the argument that we should be combating climate change whether caused by us or not – because we know that's happening and presenting an potential existential threat. And not through policy, but through profit-driven action as @Kak has mentioned several times.
My apologies. I completely misunderstood you (I'm dense and distracted). We're in agreement.
 

Tourmaline

Silver Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Jun 4, 2019
582
561
184
Texas
Of course humans are a driving factor. But who is going to regulate China? lmao
 

guy93777

Bronze Contributor
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Jun 5, 2019
167
198
136


"Climate change" was originally called "global cooling". But the Earth stopped cooling down, so they called it "global warming".

But then it kind of stayed the same, so they rebranded it "Climate Change".

My opinion: "climate change" is an extremely young field of science, filled with biased theories that are based on huge extrapolations and logical jumps. The scientists that make most claims have a track record of continuously being wrong, and unnecessarily scaring people.

Until the science becomes more precise, and the predictions actually happen, then I'll choose to ignore "climate change" and the whole "end of the world" talk all together.

To answer your question directly, no, I don't think we should do anything about climate change. The Earth warming up is not necessarily bad. It'd be a lot worse if it was headed the opposite direction and we were all headed for an Ice Age.

thanks

your post make sense but most people are not logical. they just follow the trend and the medias.

the scammers don't really care about logical guys like you who warn us because the masses will believe the scam anyway.


28149



this scam is a social engineering work to get money

you have to understand that the elite can manipulate the climate on a large scale since the sixties

this is top secret stuff so the medias don't talk about it and we can predict that people won't believe what i say because the media don't talk about it

people are media slaves ( " the media are right, you are wrong. you are nobody " )





.
 

1step

Gold Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Dec 4, 2012
982
2,098
571
Kentucky
#ignore ... Jesus Christ
 
OP
OP
Nick M.

Nick M.

Bronze Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Jul 13, 2018
101
146
135
This thread is slowly becoming a series of ad hominem arguments and frankly not being thoughtful.

No one will respect your opinion until you respect theirs, no matter how wrong or absurd it is.

Let's keep it civil.
 

MJ DeMarco

Administrator
Staff member
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Jul 23, 2007
29,366
101,831
3,751
Fountain Hills, AZ
Thread closed as it has turned into a shit-show I'd rather not entertain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Fastlane Insiders

View the forum AD FREE.
Private, unindexed content
Detailed process/execution threads
Monthly conference calls with doers
Ideas needing execution, more!

Join Fastlane Insiders.

Sponsored Offers

Lex DeVille's - Advanced Freelance Udemy Courses!
-- HALLOWEEN SPECIAL STARTS TODAY! Get any of my courses at Udemy's current best price through Friday! Use code: HALLOWEEN Use any of the links...
Top Bottom