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.
Yeah, man, we pretty much all know it's not real. That's not the point.
The point is that if someone claims the sky is falling but then tells you not to check to see if the sky is actually falling, then they're not actually concerned about it and are only concerned with manipulating you.
You're right, it isn't real. But these shitbags are using the fear they can stir up to implement what appears to be their preferred solution to anything - feudalism masquerading as socialism. And they keep producing shit science to fan the flames ever-higher - so let's cut 'em off at the knees and discredit the unworthy science they're producing/
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.
Frankly, the reason they are hysterical is 2 fold:
The environmentalist movement is founded by literal god damned Nazis who were obsessed with the "soil" part of "Blood & Soil" (long discussion on what that actually meant to the Nazis and how that pertains to conservationism), and believed in Malthusian predictions of population collapse. All of the internationalist organizations can be thrown directly in the garbage for that.
The largest corporations in the world, particularly within agriculture, finance, and trade are facing a disaster because they will not be able to easily respond to climate changes, in the same way they control the world's monetary system since they can't respond to price changes. Climate Change is going to completely alter the environments of many continents and will result in a large movement of people. Maybe even the construction of new major cities (Canada in particular comes to mind), this means that the agricultural order of the world and it's commodity trading are going to be changed rather violently in the coming decades, and companies like Cargil are going to have to figure out how to adapt to how food is not going to be grown when, where, and how they want it to be. Worse, they might not even be able to grow what they want to, which is want the largest agricultural corporations rely on.
(continued) Farmers are always going to be the first people effected by Climactic change and any change that happens to them is going to effect food distribution to the rest of the country and every single thing that implies from political stability, economic well-being, public healthcare, population density, and much much more. Thanks to FDR's farm system, farmers are effectively dependent on share-cropping for the major Agricultural firms, and on federal subsidies to survive in such a highly regulated market that admits its sole purpose is to keep food prices extremely low. Probably lower than they even should be.
However, Climate Change means that the only proper solution to the oncoming problems to agriculture would be to radically de-regulate, well past the point of ending subsidies. This is a lethal threat to the largest corporations that depend on controlling agricultural commodity trading, and it also threatens establishment political loyalty over these regions. Farmers being allowed to adapt to Climate Change means increased food price volatility, worse: it means deflationary pressure on the major agricultural firms that will either have to eat the cost, force the farmers to take the hit, or force the consumer to offset the deflation with taxation. This means that:
You have the firm eat the cost and go out of business for being unprofitable (the correct decision, but you lose political control over your cartel)
You have the local farmers eat the cost by having them go out of business, which threatens your political control over your food supply from angry farmers.
You make consumers pay a shitload more in taxes or inflation to offset the decreasing price of food, which will weaken political control over them and foment significant resentment against the government.
From their perspective, it's only bad news. Look at it like this, Climate Change causing deflation on agriculture is like Caronavirus causing deflation on the stock markets: they chose options 2 & 3, put 46 million people out of work and hyperinflate the currency. The is already a catastrophe, and their hoping to barely scrape by with rampant fraud, a highly agitated population, and they've already lost the capitol once. Climate Change will do the same thing, but for food. That is why they are scared. You think the Boomer Riot at the capitol was bad? Try a Bread Riot. Or worse: a Water Riot.
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'd say that that the pandemic has killed more people and is a much more serious problem in the short run. Climate Change will be a significant issue in the long run and it will have made significant alterations in our civilizaitonal systems.
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.
The environmental cultists also never gave much of a damn about the extreme pollution taking place in the USSR. Funny how all these cultists never give a damn about what they purport to stand for, unless it's something they can burn down the west for.
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.
You can't blame some people for going 'It's a hoax, and will blow over the last six times.'
Betting against catastrophe is always a good idea, but conclusively asserting that it's a "hoax" with absolutely nothing to back it up is also pretty absurd.
Yeah, we could stand to pollute less and conserve more
We could always pollute less and 'conserve' more. The problem is that at the present, it's being pushed way past the point of vastly diminishing returns. But for most people, it's just a religion - putting plastic in a separate garbage bin is their good deed of the week.
but I'll be damned if I ever take CC's data at face value.
There is not really a uniform set of 'data' that we can speak about. I think 'the data', such as it is, is valid to the extent that such models can be, but the presentation often is not. In newspapers, it often takes the most alarmistic scenarions, presents it as a certainty, and then ends up with people dismissing the whole thing as a hoax when the predictions turn out to be false, as always.
I would recommend Michael Shellenberger's book to anyone interested in the thing. Though I don't know whether he can be trusted either. That is part of the problem, all of this stuff is so inscrutable, and the 'experts' so morally and intellectually bankrupt, that one is forced to either believe politicized anarcho-primitivist 'experts' on one side, or those 'experts' funded by Exon (as the saying goes) on the other side, or into agnosticism. The fanaticism with which people advocate positions of which they have no clue at all whether they are correct, on both sides, is something that bothers me. At least have the balls to acknowledge that you don't know. As I don't.
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.
Not really. "This is false because X believes it" is a classic ad hominem and quite ridiculous. Thunberg may have any number of notions that are not false. Nor do her beliefs invalidate the science that is out there, just as exaggerations by other alarmists do not invalidate it.
Also, what's your basis that she will be trans soon?
No one is 'trans', and no one ever will be. More like, she will put on a baseball cap and falsely assert that she is a man.
Why? Her parents can milk this 'climate change' thing for only so long, for attention. They will need some novelty in order to keep attention. Besides, she's autistic, and therefore ripe material for being recruited to the cult.
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.
Yeah, man, we pretty much all know it's not real. That's not the point.
The point is that if someone claims the sky is falling but then tells you not to check to see if the sky is actually falling, then they're not actually concerned about it and are only concerned with manipulating you.
You're right, it isn't real. But these shitbags are using the fear they can stir up to implement what appears to be their preferred solution to anything - feudalism masquerading as socialism. And they keep producing shit science to fan the flames ever-higher - so let's cut 'em off at the knees and discredit the unworthy science they're producing/
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.
Frankly, the reason they are hysterical is 2 fold:
The environmentalist movement is founded by literal god damned Nazis who were obsessed with the "soil" part of "Blood & Soil" (long discussion on what that actually meant to the Nazis and how that pertains to conservationism), and believed in Malthusian predictions of population collapse. All of the internationalist organizations can be thrown directly in the garbage for that.
The largest corporations in the world, particularly within agriculture, finance, and trade are facing a disaster because they will not be able to easily respond to climate changes, in the same way they control the world's monetary system since they can't respond to price changes. Climate Change is going to completely alter the environments of many continents and will result in a large movement of people. Maybe even the construction of new major cities (Canada in particular comes to mind), this means that the agricultural order of the world and it's commodity trading are going to be changed rather violently in the coming decades, and companies like Cargil are going to have to figure out how to adapt to how food is not going to be grown when, where, and how they want it to be. Worse, they might not even be able to grow what they want to, which is want the largest agricultural corporations rely on.
(continued) Farmers are always going to be the first people effected by Climactic change and any change that happens to them is going to effect food distribution to the rest of the country and every single thing that implies from political stability, economic well-being, public healthcare, population density, and much much more. Thanks to FDR's farm system, farmers are effectively dependent on share-cropping for the major Agricultural firms, and on federal subsidies to survive in such a highly regulated market that admits its sole purpose is to keep food prices extremely low. Probably lower than they even should be.
However, Climate Change means that the only proper solution to the oncoming problems to agriculture would be to radically de-regulate, well past the point of ending subsidies. This is a lethal threat to the largest corporations that depend on controlling agricultural commodity trading, and it also threatens establishment political loyalty over these regions. Farmers being allowed to adapt to Climate Change means increased food price volatility, worse: it means deflationary pressure on the major agricultural firms that will either have to eat the cost, force the farmers to take the hit, or force the consumer to offset the deflation with taxation. This means that:
From their perspective, it's only bad news. Look at it like this, Climate Change causing deflation on agriculture is like Caronavirus causing deflation on the stock markets: they chose options 2 & 3, put 46 million people out of work and hyperinflate the currency. The is already a catastrophe, and their hoping to barely scrape by with rampant fraud, a highly agitated population, and they've already lost the capitol once. Climate Change will do the same thing, but for food. That is why they are scared. You think the Boomer Riot at the capitol was bad? Try a Bread Riot. Or worse: a Water Riot.
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'd say that that the pandemic has killed more people and is a much more serious problem in the short run. Climate Change will be a significant issue in the long run and it will have made significant alterations in our civilizaitonal systems.
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.
MUH PER CAPITA
never mind the fact that of course they're going to have a smaller number when you divide by 2 billion
The environmental cultists also never gave much of a damn about the extreme pollution taking place in the USSR. Funny how all these cultists never give a damn about what they purport to stand for, unless it's something they can burn down the west for.
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.
Doomsayers has been the most powerful tool to control people. From religious prophecies to global warming. Power, control and wealth.
Betting against catastrophe is always a good idea, but conclusively asserting that it's a "hoax" with absolutely nothing to back it up is also pretty absurd.
We could always pollute less and 'conserve' more. The problem is that at the present, it's being pushed way past the point of vastly diminishing returns. But for most people, it's just a religion - putting plastic in a separate garbage bin is their good deed of the week.
There is not really a uniform set of 'data' that we can speak about. I think 'the data', such as it is, is valid to the extent that such models can be, but the presentation often is not. In newspapers, it often takes the most alarmistic scenarions, presents it as a certainty, and then ends up with people dismissing the whole thing as a hoax when the predictions turn out to be false, as always.
I would recommend Michael Shellenberger's book to anyone interested in the thing. Though I don't know whether he can be trusted either. That is part of the problem, all of this stuff is so inscrutable, and the 'experts' so morally and intellectually bankrupt, that one is forced to either believe politicized anarcho-primitivist 'experts' on one side, or those 'experts' funded by Exon (as the saying goes) on the other side, or into agnosticism. The fanaticism with which people advocate positions of which they have no clue at all whether they are correct, on both sides, is something that bothers me. At least have the balls to acknowledge that you don't know. As I don't.
You can deny that it's caused by humans.
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.
Do tell me by what standard one can tell if someone belongs to 'the wise'.
[weasel words enter the conversation]
What is 'negligible'? I don't agree that CC is existential, but it's definitely not negligible either.
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?
Not really. "This is false because X believes it" is a classic ad hominem and quite ridiculous. Thunberg may have any number of notions that are not false. Nor do her beliefs invalidate the science that is out there, just as exaggerations by other alarmists do not invalidate it.
No one is 'trans', and no one ever will be. More like, she will put on a baseball cap and falsely assert that she is a man.
Why? Her parents can milk this 'climate change' thing for only so long, for attention. They will need some novelty in order to keep attention. Besides, she's autistic, and therefore ripe material for being recruited to the cult.