Anthropogenic Climate Change, is in fact, an existential threat due to it's inevitable effect on human systems.
That's precisely why the investigations should go forward.
The seven were an “odd little bro-pocket” whose “whole point is to harm other scientists,” marine ecologist John Bruno of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill—who hasn’t collaborated with Dixson and Munday—tweeted in October 2020. “The cruelty is the driving force of the work.”
This is the whine of "I fucking love science" style propagandist running into someone that actually demands a defense of your work. It took 40 years of Higgs' theories being tested before the Higgs-Boson particle could be proven to exist. The Scientific Establishment has a real problem sometimes with Science. Einstein refused to tolerate Quantum Mechanics. Millikan's Oil Drop experiment actually managed to practically prove that electrons had specific charges, and not a continuous stream; but he committed fraud to do it and stole a Nobel Prize from his grad student. I think the Fourier Series wasn't even accepted mathematics until the son of a bitch politically replaced committee members with his own friends who mathematically proved the validity of the series decades earlier.
Fuck your "public attitudes over the scientific debate". Stand on the fucking data and don't back down.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if it is in fact real, it is the greatest threat to humanity by a long shot.
So, in order to make sure it is in fact real, we should rigorously review every bit of data about it.
If you have a gun pointed at your head and some people are saying it's real while others say it's fake, it behooves you to be very sure which it is before you make any decisions regarding it.
Anyone trying to convince you not to double check the findings isn't actually concerned about the gun, they're concerned about their own agenda.
It's not real though. Eugenicists in the mid 20th century went straight into environmentalism. It's a big scam. It's flat earther level bullshit. I used to think that too, that "we better get this right just in case" and what I have found is there is no evidence at all that there is even the slightest concern. If you look at people studying science that make money from grants, you'll notice their research is only funded if they come to the "right" conclusions. If you say anything against the narrative - despite whatever evidence you may have - you will be shut down. Want to get paid? Fudge the results that climate alarmism is necessary. You atheists all don't seem to realize, if you don't believe in God you will be gullible enough to "believe in science", to "trust the experts". I care about the truth, and if so-called scientists are telling lies I call their bullshit out.
That's asinine. Of course humans are altering atmospheric chemical concentrations, and of course that effects the climate, because it relates to an energy equation.
The pandemic is also a real pandemic, I don't know what else to tell you on that. Debate the deaths all you want, that's perfectly reasonable. But the virus itself is not a fiction.
The climate is a problem in the same way that this "pandemic" of a virus with a 99.99% survival rate is a problem. Climate exists, humans do contribute to some of the chemicals in the air, but climate change is about as lethal as the kung flu.
I miss the days when the concern was focused on more generic pollution like companies dumping industrial waste in the rivers and such. Now no one gives a shit about rivers of plastic and chemicals freely flowing all over Asia, but somehow the first world where that's mostly been heavily punished is the biggest worstest threat to the environment.
I mean, 'We're doomed' has been repeated regularly over the last 50 years and has yet to manifest in any conceivable way, they just move to the next big lie. You can't blame some people for going 'It's a hoax, and will blow over the last six times.' when Chicken Little is still screaming his head off about it.
Yeah, we could stand to pollute less and conserve more, but I'll be damned if I ever take CC's data at face value.
Midwits take things at face value. The wise see everything the way it actually is; in terms of narrative. The climate is always changing and human development has negligible effects. The narrative behind it is like all other narratives propogated by the Globo Homo elites, to grab more power.
Fuck your "public attitudes over the scientific debate". Stand on the fucking data and don't back down.
Unless your fucking lying.
Then resign out of disgrace.
vs
Anthropogenic Climate Change, is in fact, an existential threat due to it's inevitable effect on human systems.
any study that shows anthropogenic climate change is always based on bs statistics manipulation. go into into the papers, examine them. how many times were we supposed to have global environmental collapse already? didnt al gore promise 2008 as doomsday the first time? then 2012, then 2020. nope we still here.
any climate change paper is filled with bogus stats and moving goal posts
any study that shows anthropogenic climate change is always based on bs statistics manipulation.
No, but it is going to have to be based on statistical abstraction and possible knock-on effects if you're not studying localized effects for specific areas. Beneficial effects like the warming of northern Canada which may make it more habitable for multiple species including human expansion and development, and harmful effects like the salinization of the Falkland's Islands aquifer which would prevent any practical human occupation of the Island.
go into into the papers, examine them.
Yes.
how many times were we supposed to have global environmental collapse already?
None.
didnt al gore promise 2008 as doomsday the first time? then 2012, then 2020. nope we still here.
Al Gore isn't a scientist. I had a Environmental Sciences class where we literally watched the movie and tore apart all the mistakes in it. He was pushing alarmism that the Science isn't actually alleging.
Any good climate paper is sufficiently detailed in chemistry to make it a bit hard to read. If you don't see error bars, throw it away, it's not science.
That's part of the issue here. The actual, detailed, scientific investigation is utterly unrelated to the morons in the media and watermellon communists.
Don't forget Galileo, who was willing to get imprisoned rather than meekly accept the consensus (though he did need quite some time to work up to it, perhaps not surprising given that this was the entire weight of the inquisition he was facing)
Grow a fucking backbone and defend your work. You're right - this is important, and it's important we get it right.
The Galileo story is even funnier when you consider that the Church damn well knew that heliocentrism was probably "scientifically" correct, since they were already using that model to figure out Easter (Copernicus explained the precession of Mars better, and his model was more accurate than Ptolemy's).
It was the usual suspects, the Unwashed Masses who thought the Earth was flat and the centre of the universe. The Church apparently wanted to spread the news their own way - ie, to "control the narrative" so that the herd wouldn't be ... spooked, or whatever happens when universe-changing information comes along. Galileo was jumping the gun, and the Church didn't trust the People not to lose their nuts over the news.
See, normally I'd say "Let the science sort itself out" - but the issue is that this is precisely the opposite of what happens to the IPCC's results.
As soon as they've got anything that can be misrepresented as something to forward their political aims, it's all-in on the "muh science" bandwagon.
Anthropogenic Climate Change, is in fact, an existential threat due to it's inevitable effect on human systems.
That's precisely why the investigations should go forward.
This is the whine of "I fucking love science" style propagandist running into someone that actually demands a defense of your work. It took 40 years of Higgs' theories being tested before the Higgs-Boson particle could be proven to exist. The Scientific Establishment has a real problem sometimes with Science. Einstein refused to tolerate Quantum Mechanics. Millikan's Oil Drop experiment actually managed to practically prove that electrons had specific charges, and not a continuous stream; but he committed fraud to do it and stole a Nobel Prize from his grad student. I think the Fourier Series wasn't even accepted mathematics until the son of a bitch politically replaced committee members with his own friends who mathematically proved the validity of the series decades earlier.
Fuck your "public attitudes over the scientific debate". Stand on the fucking data and don't back down.
Unless your fucking lying.
Then resign out of disgrace.
No, it's not. Never was. Complete lie, just like the plandemic.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if it is in fact real, it is the greatest threat to humanity by a long shot.
So, in order to make sure it is in fact real, we should rigorously review every bit of data about it.
If you have a gun pointed at your head and some people are saying it's real while others say it's fake, it behooves you to be very sure which it is before you make any decisions regarding it.
Anyone trying to convince you not to double check the findings isn't actually concerned about the gun, they're concerned about their own agenda.
It's not real though. Eugenicists in the mid 20th century went straight into environmentalism. It's a big scam. It's flat earther level bullshit. I used to think that too, that "we better get this right just in case" and what I have found is there is no evidence at all that there is even the slightest concern. If you look at people studying science that make money from grants, you'll notice their research is only funded if they come to the "right" conclusions. If you say anything against the narrative - despite whatever evidence you may have - you will be shut down. Want to get paid? Fudge the results that climate alarmism is necessary. You atheists all don't seem to realize, if you don't believe in God you will be gullible enough to "believe in science", to "trust the experts". I care about the truth, and if so-called scientists are telling lies I call their bullshit out.
Then a proper scientific analysis will bear that out.
That's asinine. Of course humans are altering atmospheric chemical concentrations, and of course that effects the climate, because it relates to an energy equation.
The pandemic is also a real pandemic, I don't know what else to tell you on that. Debate the deaths all you want, that's perfectly reasonable. But the virus itself is not a fiction.
The climate is a problem in the same way that this "pandemic" of a virus with a 99.99% survival rate is a problem. Climate exists, humans do contribute to some of the chemicals in the air, but climate change is about as lethal as the kung flu.
I love that the "debate" on CC goes on between two sides that have the IQ of a tadpole: "we're doomed" vs. "it's a hoax".
I miss the days when the concern was focused on more generic pollution like companies dumping industrial waste in the rivers and such. Now no one gives a shit about rivers of plastic and chemicals freely flowing all over Asia, but somehow the first world where that's mostly been heavily punished is the biggest worstest threat to the environment.
I mean, 'We're doomed' has been repeated regularly over the last 50 years and has yet to manifest in any conceivable way, they just move to the next big lie. You can't blame some people for going 'It's a hoax, and will blow over the last six times.' when Chicken Little is still screaming his head off about it.
Yeah, we could stand to pollute less and conserve more, but I'll be damned if I ever take CC's data at face value.
Midwits take things at face value. The wise see everything the way it actually is; in terms of narrative. The climate is always changing and human development has negligible effects. The narrative behind it is like all other narratives propogated by the Globo Homo elites, to grab more power.
And you're the enlightened cuck right?
you raise two interesting yet conflicting points
vs
any study that shows anthropogenic climate change is always based on bs statistics manipulation. go into into the papers, examine them. how many times were we supposed to have global environmental collapse already? didnt al gore promise 2008 as doomsday the first time? then 2012, then 2020. nope we still here.
any climate change paper is filled with bogus stats and moving goal posts
No, but it is going to have to be based on statistical abstraction and possible knock-on effects if you're not studying localized effects for specific areas. Beneficial effects like the warming of northern Canada which may make it more habitable for multiple species including human expansion and development, and harmful effects like the salinization of the Falkland's Islands aquifer which would prevent any practical human occupation of the Island.
Yes.
None.
Al Gore isn't a scientist. I had a Environmental Sciences class where we literally watched the movie and tore apart all the mistakes in it. He was pushing alarmism that the Science isn't actually alleging.
Any good climate paper is sufficiently detailed in chemistry to make it a bit hard to read. If you don't see error bars, throw it away, it's not science.
That's part of the issue here. The actual, detailed, scientific investigation is utterly unrelated to the morons in the media and watermellon communists.
dont forget melted to death by acid rain
Don't forget Galileo, who was willing to get imprisoned rather than meekly accept the consensus (though he did need quite some time to work up to it, perhaps not surprising given that this was the entire weight of the inquisition he was facing)
Grow a fucking backbone and defend your work. You're right - this is important, and it's important we get it right.
This is why saying "my truth" should get you expelled from schools.
Fuck your truth, we want the truth.
The Galileo story is even funnier when you consider that the Church damn well knew that heliocentrism was probably "scientifically" correct, since they were already using that model to figure out Easter (Copernicus explained the precession of Mars better, and his model was more accurate than Ptolemy's).
It was the usual suspects, the Unwashed Masses who thought the Earth was flat and the centre of the universe. The Church apparently wanted to spread the news their own way - ie, to "control the narrative" so that the herd wouldn't be ... spooked, or whatever happens when universe-changing information comes along. Galileo was jumping the gun, and the Church didn't trust the People not to lose their nuts over the news.
Basically
Climate Change is just another arm of the female supremacists. Did you miss when Greta said it was patriarchy's fault?
It's not a real issue and anyone who thinks it is, is crazy.
I don't listen to retards
If that brainless and soon-to-be-transgendered puppet Greta said that eating your own shit is patriarchy, would you be feasting on your own excrement?
What a weird thing to say.
Also, what's your basis that she will be trans soon?