Climate Change

[WestCanMan]

17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Rumors? It's no rumor that the first Rona case was a Wuhan lab worker ON the covid gain of function project.

The vaxx has been found to anything but safe.

And I watched that bastion of "science" Fauci say the gain of function work his agency funded, was not gain of function.

So ya...so much for "science".

BTW...why won't a "scientist" like Peter Hotez.com, debate a mere politician like RFK?

When he says that you "discount actual science in favor of internet rumors and speculation", what he really means is that he refuses to take certain facts into account because they prove that he has just been a useful idjit for the vax-Nazis for the past 3.5 years. 

He's not gonna stop lying or start considering facts now. What would be the point? 

[robosmith]

15 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

Video of a Randstanding speech is NOT a legitimate news source cause Rand lies all the time. LMAO

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

When he says that you "discount actual science in favor of internet rumors and speculation", what he really means is that he refuses to take certain facts into account because they prove that he has just been a useful idjit for the vax-Nazis for the past 3.5 years. 

He's not gonna stop lying or start considering facts now. What would be the point? 

Your claim that Hodad is lying could in FACT just be YOU LYING.

You certainly DO NOT have greater credibility here. Too many claims which conflict with EXPERTS.

Though, I'm sure Nat man will appreciate your ATTEMPT. LMAO

 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Now this is at least semi-rational.

Yet...both of our nations have more than enough fossil resources for ourselves and then some. Just get Joe and Pixie-Dust the hell outta the way.

Lol...go home Sally.

No, we do not have enough fossil resources. And they are harming us.

For instance: Notice how, every time the Arabs raise their prices, the Americans and Canadians bend us over and raise prices on us. And I've also noticed how we seem to get into wars over oil and that's very expensive.

 

Imagine if America was the leader in wind and solar technology, and we exported it to nations around the world, and we had so much cheap energy that we could all drive electric cars practically for free and we could build massive, clean, low pollution factories to grow our economy. And the environmental reviews for those factories would be far easier because they could run from electricity. No exhaust smoke! 

Energy is what drives economies. With renewable technologies, we could have unlimited energy. Of course, manufacturing panels and turbines requires energy, but the net is far, far lower.  That is what will happen, sooner or later. It is inevitable. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

If I may...

I remember "nearly unanimous" scientific consensus that The Rona came from anywhere but the Wuhan lab. That the vaxx was safe. That gain of function was not gain of function.

So much for "science".

I recall a vigorous debate in scientific journals. China comes out poorly whichever theory is correct BTW and was none too keen on foreigners investigating its wet market practices either. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Scientists are seriously talented people. They’ve often given up the possibility more lucrative careers and they’re focused on getting things right. Persuading them all to join a conspiracy against the truth would be lot more more difficult than people seem to imagine. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[ironstone]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Based on what? All three cases are an overwhelming-- nearly unanimous --consensus of scientists in their respective fields telling you about things you can't see and that you aren't capable of investigating on your own. 

So, rationally, why do you believe just 2 of 3? Are you flipping a coin?

Where do you get the idea that consensus of scientists is nearly unanimous with regards to climate change?

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope, there have been worse forest fires. We are having a bad season but once again - not predicted by any of their models.

Has there ever been a worse forest fire season at this point in the year? 
 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/06/canada-fire-season-00104959

I have no particular interest in this subject but I can assure the skeptics here that they would encounter much more, let’s call it, trenchant debate on other sites where people seriously pursue the science of climate change.

Edited July 7, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Video of a Randstanding speech is NOT a legitimate news source cause Rand lies all the time. LMAO

You are a real piece o' work robo-bot.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Nationalist

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

 

Science produces explanations to explain the evidence collected and then tests those hypotheses.

Usually . But if the hypothosis is correct it produces accurate results.

And that's been a problem as well. The predictions are crazy vague most of the  time and frequently missed.  Which calls it into question even more.

Which isn't entirely fair - there's still a lot we don't know about how all of this works so the models are not going to be precise.  BUT - that very fact just adds to the problem.

When you take that and add to it that anyone who DAAARREEESSS question any element of it is instantly attacked it gives the dubious all the ammo they need to doubt the conclusions.  And that's a problem.

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Not having perfect models does NOT negate the physics of GHG warming, nor CO2 being the MAIN contributor due to the HUGE GIGA-TONS per year VOLUME.

It demonstrates we don't understand the physics of it. If we did, we'd have accurate models.. That's how it works.

Don't be such a Dunning-kruger .  LOL!!!!

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

No, we do not have enough fossil resources. And they are harming us.

For instance: Notice how, every time the Arabs raise their prices, the Americans and Canadians bend us over and raise prices on us. And I've also noticed how we seem to get into wars over oil and that's very expensive.

 

Imagine if America was the leader in wind and solar technology, and we exported it to nations around the world, and we had so much cheap energy that we could all drive electric cars practically for free and we could build massive, clean, low pollution factories to grow our economy. And the environmental reviews for those factories would be far easier because they could run from electricity. No exhaust smoke! 

Energy is what drives economies. With renewable technologies, we could have unlimited energy. Of course, manufacturing panels and turbines requires energy, but the net is far, far lower.  That is what will happen, sooner or later. It is inevitable. 

Yes...

https://www.rigzone.com/news/where_do_total_recoverable_oil_reserves_stand-03-jul-2023-173243-article/

We do have quite enough.

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

It demonstrates we don't understand the physics of it. If we did, we'd have accurate models..  

People who say that the models are bad often quote some obscure activist, or somebody who said something. The mainstay of the models is the ipcc temperature predictions and they've been pretty good

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I recall a vigorous debate in scientific journals. China comes out poorly whichever theory is correct BTW and was none too keen on foreigners investigating its wet market practices either. 

Really? Gee. Guess someone should have informed Mr. Science Tony Fauci.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Rumors? It's no rumor that the first Rona case was a Wuhan lab worker ON the covid gain of function project.

The vaxx has been found to anything but safe.

And I watched that bastion of "science" Fauci say the gain of function work his agency funded, was not gain of function.

So ya...so much for "science".

BTW...why won't a "scientist" like Peter Hotez.com, debate a mere politician like RFK?

Dude, you're a sucker for internet rumors. There is no known patient zero. The vaccine continues to be safe. Unlike the other two,  the GoF claim is, at least, rooted in something real that you are misrepresenting. But mostly it seems you simply reject actual science in favor of random shit on the internet.

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, ironstone said:

Where do you get the idea that consensus of scientists is nearly unanimous with regards to climate change?

 

Not from a goddamn YouTube video. Poll, after poll, after poll. There is not a major scientific body on the planet that rejects anthropogenic global warming. You can find an individual crackpot or Big Oil shill, here or there, but the consensus among scientists is absolutely overwhelming.

And companies like Exxon have known for decades.

We have seen this story play out over and over again--tobacco and sugar most obviously. Independent research with no profit motive identifies a harm and the companies selling the stuff mount a disinformation campaign that easily fools the credulous among us and retards the political will to act. And now it's a point of political tribalism on the right to dogmatically reject science. Damn the elites, and their fancy education!

The scientists of the world are not trolling you. They're not doing this for fun. They're not suffering from mass delusion. Everybody would love it if the carbohydron age could go on endlessly with no harm done. It simply isn't true. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

57 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Not from a goddamn YouTube video…

That’s more like it. Unfortunately, being right in this debate brings no prizes. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You are a real piece o' work robo-bot.

You are a real piece of LAZY Nat man. Couldn't find a legitimate source so you resorted to Randstanding.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It demonstrates we don't understand the physics of it. If we did, we'd have accurate models.. That's how it works.

Don't be such a Dunning-kruger .  LOL!!!!

No, it demonstrates that NOT ALL of the details are understood ACCURATELY, and/or the process is at least partially stochastic.

 Do you know what that means? LMAO

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Has there ever been a worse forest fire season at this point in the year?

Hard to say about this time of year.  We can see evidence of worse forest fires but not when we had the ability to record it live or anything. Thats actually fairly new. Remember that when we say "the worst in history" - our recorded history for such things is less than 100 years old.  While newspapers love to throw around words like "unprecendentd" and "off the charts - even the article had to admit in 1989 we actually weren't far off what this year is. It's only about 30 percent more, not like double or triple the last 'worst' year or anything. 

It's not even that it's really been much hotter - it's been a little dryer.

As the experts say - the heavy fire season isn't all about climate change

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/wildfires-canada-cause-explanation-climate-change-005844098.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFP1S2oc19BQLWc4LKVvgaUCmBBrO6E1eJy6hELV-sBccpPWkrMeiTZx7SDrPsG80r77HOzBVG-YEMiYWhU4doa76w7GCpSgt04ctLcvSd1K8aPHK-oTrj90CpQtVW34O5_bmyrgd-DcSuVzq7Dh-JfSBzZyfdCPjgIG8MPDSpWu

So there you go.

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

No, it demonstrates that NOT ALL of the details are understood ACCURATELY, and/or the process is at least partially stochastic.

 

That LITERALLY means we don't understand the physics of it. You literally just confirmed what i said. You're an !diot

 

Quote

 Do you know what that means? LMAO

Stochastic? yep - we used stochastic methodology in our programming back in the day when the first throttling technology was being played with and developed for high speed internet in order to limit feeds to various users. Much more efficient than token bucket on network traffic.

If you were twice as smart as you think you are, you'd still be a quarter as smart as i actually am    But it's fun to watch you try  

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That LITERALLY means we don't understand the physics of it. You literally just confirmed what i said. You're an !diot

No, like I said, there are details that are not understood 100%. NOT that there is no understanding of MOST of the physics.

Nothing is understood perfectly in most science. Unfortunate that you're unable to understand that.

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Stochastic? yep - we used stochastic methodology in our programming back in the day when the first throttling technology was being played with and developed for high speed internet in order to limit feeds to various users. Much more efficient than token bucket on network traffic.

If you were twice as smart as you think you are, you'd still be a quarter as smart as i actually am    But it's fun to watch you try  

^Not the same as understanding what stochastic natural processes are.

You're not nearly as smart as YOU BELIEVE, cause you didn't know the difference.

Thanks for demonstrating that. LMAO

Edited July 7, 2023 by robosmith

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

No, like I said, there are details that are not understood 100%. NOT that there is no understanding of MOST of the physics.

if you don't understand the details  enough to be able to make accurate predictions - you don't understand the physics.

Quote

Nothing is understood perfectly in most science. Unfortunate that you're unable to understand that.

they're understood well enough to give accurate predictions. Climate science is not.

 

Quote

^Not the same as understanding what stochastic natural processes are.

You're having a Dunning Krueger moment  

Here's some fun - explain the difference    I doubt you understand EITHER use of the word properly. 

Quote

You're not nearly as smart as YOU BELIEVE, cause you didn't know the difference.

Well you explain it and then the whole world can see which of us understands it   

I'll put my money on "You Can't" and will come up with some cheezy excuse as to why you won't try or you'll screw it up  

Edited July 7, 2023 by CdnFox

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

Dude, you're a sucker for internet rumors. There is no known patient zero. The vaccine continues to be safe. Unlike the other two,  the GoF claim is, at least, rooted in something real that you are misrepresenting. But mostly it seems you simply reject actual science in favor of random shit on the internet.

Dude, you're a sucker for those who have repeatedly lied to you.

And yes I do reject the "science" of Fauci, the WHO, the CDC and most of them.

When they lie and get caught...several times...I tend to doubt the liars.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Nationalist

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

You are a real piece of LAZY Nat man. Couldn't find a legitimate source so you resorted to Randstanding.

Huh...you saw the video. Yet you still can't accept the truth right in your lap.

Man...that's some interesting level of blind trust you got going there.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

Not from a goddamn YouTube video. Poll, after poll, after poll. There is not a major scientific body on the planet that rejects anthropogenic global warming.  

There are virtually no scientific papers being published on reputable media that reject human-caused climate change.

The opposition usually comes in the form of YouTube videos or blogs targeted directly at the conspiracy types.  They go directly to the public to diminish the peer review process and fool people who don't have expertise.

This process has slowed the acceptance of policy changes to mitigate climate change in the US and China also.