Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

    43,176
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    98

Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. Oslo Accord ? Peace started to take hold.... Someone who wasn't Palestinian ended up killing the Israeli PM.
  2. 1. Yeah if you want to talk about what Curry is saying, let's talk about it. But the discussion starts out with somebody saying global warming is a hoax. It's not happening... Or at least that's the inference anyone would get from it. Then it turns into well... We should implement a new kind of politics that is more amenable to risk management discussions. And the UN should take the lead on that. Do you see how the conversation switched there? 2. Suffering... You have to factor in the enjoyment people get from exaggeration online.
  3. I listened to the full half hour video, given to the annual GWPF lecture recently. She doesn't say anything about a hoax, more about risk response, policy setting and priorities. Sure there's lots in there you would agree with but lots you wouldn't either such a prioritizing global poverty via the UN. I asked how you would make all of the politics better and you said honesty is the key. Well, to me, you should be honest with yourself first. Everyone should. That's why I spent over an hour this week considering my position. So terms like hoax and "bankrupting Canada" Are, to me, every bit is exaggerated as talking about a climate crisis. I listened to the full half hour video, given to the annual GWPF lecture recently. She doesn't say anything about a hoax, more about risk response, policy setting and priorities. Sure there's lots in there you would agree with but lots you wouldn't either such a prioritizing global poverty via the UN. I asked how you would make all of the politics better and you said honesty is the key. Well, to me, you should be honest with yourself first. Everyone should. That's why I spent over an hour this week considering my position. So terms like hoax and "bankrupting Canada" Are, to me, every bit is exaggerated as talking about a climate crisis.
  4. What's vague is the connection between what she says and your claims of a hoax. There's no hoax here. She believes that humans cause global warming to a degree. Do you agree with that or not? I never got into this to debate whether alarmism is a thing or not. If that is what you mean by hoax, you're not using the word correctly. In your post here, you are backing a scientist who believes in climate change.
  5. No I never said 100%. And let me get actual papers Curry has put out since you're vague on it.
  6. 1. Agreed. 2. Sigh. Bankrupting Canada... that's hysterical exaggeration. I can say that without saying whether or not it's worth it to mitigate, or do a carbon tax. If you are one of those people calling for 100% honesty from media and want lower levels of hysteria... just saying maybe your tendency to use extreme terms is something they do too ? Maybe it's a human thing ? And people who are worried about bankruptcy... some of them think we should be charging companies for this (some conservatives on this board). Maybe Poilievre will do that, who knows...
  7. 1. Not what I asked for. And the 'not on board' part... they're on board with the parts you specifically disagree with. 2. So if you're saying she thinks amthropogenic warming is not real, I didn't see that quote. Try me again. 3. I didn't ask about that. Why do you keep providing things I didn't ask for ? 4. Are those the names you gave me already ? 5. I gave you the assignment. You (well, you and Goddess) came up with a few names. I did know them but I didn't know they were still publishing their theories. Fair enough. I would say you won the challenge (you and Goddess). The rest of the stuff... I didn't dispute. I don't think 97% is off, though. If Curry disputes it, she would have to provide evidence... If that was in your post, I missed it. I feel like we did a good discussion here. I would stay I stand corrected with Svensmark and Shaviv. Are we done then ?
  8. 1. Sure. Well here's my part. I agree that the pro Climate side has exaggerated sometimes, that the media loves to fear monger, that we don't know what the impact of any of this is. Is any of that surprising, or does it change whether or not we should act? Maybe not. I really take exception with people who know nothing, damaging the reputation of individuals and institutions because they are paranoid.... And these people get very upset. If you ask them also. Then they come back at you and they associate you with all kinds of things that you didn't say. Because they're tribal. They also associate you with people you don't agree with like Trudeau. After all, if you don't agree with them, then you must agree with their blood enemies, right? 2. I don't think worst case scenario is in the cards. I think it's going to get a lot hotter. I also think that population reduction and lot of other changes are going to make these questions moot in 100 years. The people who argue the hardest about this don't care about the issues, as much as the tribal part.
  9. Ok... well I tried to engage with you honestly... should have known better. Look, there was an investigation. No significant change. Be satisfied or go have a nap. There are so many eyes on these things, as evidenced by this nothing story being shared by the Conspiracy set ... We've seen it before. Mike Pillow was wrong.
  10. Yes, we can't do much more than models in any case. Case. Just like we can't live, test a double-blind tobacco study. It will never be proven that cigarettes cause cancer, as a result of that. But again... You're arguing about something I didn't dispute. Like West can.
  11. How does big Tech figure into it? And to repeat.. I asked you for a specific thing, and you haven't returned that. You're arguing instead that there's climate panic, but I didn't try to dispute that at all. Are you just looking to argue about something in this general topic?...because I can assure you we agree on a lot. I can find all the legitimate skeptics I mentioned above. If Google doesn't return any others, it just might be that there aren't a lot of them. Can you try to to put your comments into one post together? It makes it easier to reply.
  12. Well counting millions of ballots will result in some mistakes, especially because you're dealing with volunteers for a lot of it. I'm confused... The end result was 900 or so votes for Trump, but the district was overwhelmingly for Biden. There wasn't really an impact in this case. Why is it being talked about? I'm honestly just trying to figure out what's being said here. Because it was an error, that means that the entire system could be in error? I don't think that follows. They investigated specific complaints I thought
  13. "During the recount, Trump gained 939 net votes against Biden in Fulton County, where Biden received 73% support, according to the results." So... 🤔
  14. Svensmark and Shaviv both satisfy the criteria. I had followed them back when this topic hit BIG on this board 15 years ago. I'm surprised that they're still pursuing this idea - that cosmic rays are behind warming - but indeed they are. But if you wanted me to look for skeptical scientists, I found them. Two people. This is what we mean when we talk about consensus. So... if there's consensus... IF... How do we proceed? For people to make a decision on whether to try to do something about Climate Change, they can either do it out of fear or do a rational risk assessment. Given our public sphere, and the lack of trust... it's understandable that some try to raise panic levels rather than rational discussion. Generally, for us on here I would say: If you prefer the latter, then I expect you would want to engage in a positive and honest way on here also.
  15. This list includes people who haven't published in over 20 years, one of whom died. The reason that's important is that the evidence has grown since then. Idso for example, is quoted from a 42 yr old book above. Several others believe in human-caused warming. Even Richard Lindzen, who I think I have written about here on MLW, believes that. But he's the strongest skeptic listed. His "iris" theory says additional cloud creation will mitigate temperature change but it hasn't happened yet since he published his ideas. Also some aren't climate scientists, and haven't published. Remember I'm talking about the pure claims of human caused warming. So my question to you is the same as with Dr Curry. This list includes people who haven't published in over 20 years, one of whom died. The reason that's important is that the evidence has grown since then. Idso for example, is quoted from a 42 yr old book above. Several others believe in human-caused warming. Even Richard Lindzen, who I think I have written about here on MLW, believes that. But he's the strongest skeptic listed. His "iris" theory says additional cloud creation will mitigate temperature change but it hasn't happened yet since he published his ideas. Also some aren't climate scientists, and haven't published. Remember I'm talking about the pure claims of human caused warming. So my question to you is the same as with Dr Curry.
  16. I'm open to cutting off the engagement with people who want to impose their way of doing things on me. So far, I have asked for real examples so what kind of poster would I be to walk away from an interesting discussion. Perspektiv accused me of taking the board too seriously, but why come here otherwise?
  17. Ok so I started my research and only about ten minutes in, I have to stop. Indeed I remembered her after reading. She's concerned about the rhetoric and alarmism, and as an accredited scientist she is to be believed. But I got confused because my challenge was specifically: "Name a single climate scientist who has published a credible counter argument in the last 30 years. Not a YouTube, or a blog post... Not an oil expert, weather man, or geologist..."" Her Wiki summary says: "In the 2010 profile, she accused the IPCC of "corruption" and said she no longer had confidence in the process. She agreed that the Earth is warming, largely due to human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic. She said that the IPCC was distorting the science and scientists were not dealing adequately with uncertainties.[" She's not censored, but also she doesn't seem to meet the criteria I mentioned. If you support her, then you're supporting a scientist who believes in human-caused climate change. So I don't want to go any further until you clarify whether you're fully aligned with her or not. I will continue with the other Post. Please note I am proceeding respectfully and ask you to do the same. Given the amount of work this is going to take me, I'm not interested in deep dives that take a long time only to have you call me a dunderhead at the end of it all...
  18. The issue is whether the YouTube is itself objective or not. If you through arrive at a topic with absolutely no knowledge. It's pretty easy to get hoodwinked. Bias and deception happens, but you also have to take into account that there's oversight in most processes in an open society. Including academia, scientific research, etc.
  19. I'm familiar with some of these, yes. Some of them are not climate scientists, others published prior to 20 years ago. I already told West can that I would be looking into it. No, Goddess, I will give them their due but I already addressed some of these in the past.
  20. Sorry, this is another Overton Window/Conspiracy take. As soon as you start shrieking about Marxism, I lose all interest in engagement. And the fairness doctrine was dropped because it was thought of as censorship. To bring it back would and Fox News as we know it.
  21. Not that I'm an expert but what about 1998?
  22. An interesting idea, but we'll see. This response is impressive because, in the surface at least, it seems like exactly what I constantly ask for on here - a real response. Unfortunately, it's also a be-careful-what-you-wish-for type of thing, because I'm going to be taking a lot of time to look into it. Thanks.
  23. I will look at these too, but remember that I asked specifically for papers from the last 20 years, because that's when there was a decided drop-off in support for the skeptical position.
  24. 1. Ok, well good. You found one. Your rationale for there being no others is Google searches? That makes zero sense. Oreskes published the definitive paper on it. There's almost no opposition. I'm glad to learn of Curry and will read up. But she seems to be by herself, and no Google conspiracy will change that. And I haven't heard of another climate scientist who's published recently, no. Go di8a post and show me to be wrong, go ahead.
×
×
  • Create New...