NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (3 Viewers)

[Galaxiom]

How can science be influenced by money? I wonder if this could somehow correlate with climate change?

Perhaps you might consider where is the money concentrated on industries affected by Climate Change?

Which side already HAS the billions of dollars to buy whatever opinion they wish to prevail?

The notion that those advocating for action to be taken on carbon pollution have paid off the virtually the entire scientific community is utterly ludicrous.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Money can influence everything including science, feel free to split the hairs anyway you like.

 

[Galaxiom]

Money can influence everything including science, feel free to split the hairs anyway you like.

Clearly you are not interested in thinking about the reality of which side has the money to buy the opinion they want.

Oh, that's right, you aren't actually interested in thinking about the issue at all because you already decided it isn't your problem.

 

[Mike375]

I saw an article today and the author is pro climate change but he reckons not just the Swedish girl but all the other alarmists will cause huge problems when the stuff at their level of prediction does not come true.

He used Tim Flannery as a shining example of giving those of us who think it is bullshit a magazine full of ammo.

One of the other things that dents climate change is lefty media seems to have a habit of reporting what they want to happen. For example Fairfax and the ABC had it as impossible for Trump to win but Sky News predicted a Trump win. ABC and Fairfax had Labor a 100% win Sky News predicted Scott Morrison would win.

The climate change is a left wing media speciality but they always get everything else wrong.

And that science bloke on Q&A who said all the numbers Alan Jones used were wrong but forgot he had a previous interview with Jones where he was just the opposite. Obviously he is now on the climate change payroll. HOWEVER, what level of stupidity must he have to think Jones would replay that interview over and over and how dumb were the Q&A people to let him on.

Predicting a Trump win was easy, I did it myself. The odds were stacked against Hillary.

Although the following is only a small percentage of vote they add up.

1) America has just had a "first" with Obama. Hard to get two "firsts" in a row.

2) Normally a POTUS will get his two terms and the next POTUS will be from the other party.

3) If Hillary had won that would have meant America has a Bush, Clinton, Bush and another Clinton. Has the dynasty feel about it.

4) In this general generation we had Bush Sr and Bush Jr as POTUS. The odds of getting a husband and wife as POTUS in the same time frame is small in the extreme.

Of course Hillary likes to be liked and waster so much time in states like California. Almost as if she did not realise winning by 1 vote or getting 100% of the vote is the same, you win that state.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Clearly you are not interested in thinking about the reality of which side has the money to buy the opinion they want.

Oh, that's right, you aren't actually interested in thinking about the issue at all because you already decided it isn't your problem.

I know there are two sacred cows on the left, one is evolution the other is climate change. To be a good leftist you can never wavier on those subjects no matter the cost.

You are entrench to the point of anarchy.

 

[isladogs]

I know there are two sacred cows on the left, one is evolution the other is climate change. To be a good leftist you can never wavier on those subjects no matter the cost.

Or to put it a different way, try this reversal:

There are two sacred cows on the right, one is creationism, the other is climate change denial.
To be a good right winger, you can never waver on these subjects no matter what the cost

Equally valid perhaps? Or equally nonsense?

 

[Mike375]

I know there are two sacred cows on the left, one is evolution the other is climate change. To be a good leftist you can never wavier on those subjects no matter the cost.

You are entrench to the point of anarchy.

The evolution one is locked into a dogma. If you raise the problem of getting to the amniote egg for example, you will be banned from the forums.

Galaxiom has loudly announced he is an atheist. That is a religion. There is "belief" and "faith"

"Faith" is beyond belief, it is where you act or state a definite position without proof.

Galaxiom has extreme faith.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Or to put it a different way, try this reversal:


Equally valid perhaps? Or equally nonsense?

Many on the right are here to debate, many have stated climate change is real. Its the left that will not and cannot compromise their position.

Read back thru the treads where many have tried to be civil, only to be met with harsh reality of the left.

 

[isladogs]

Many on the right are here to debate, many have stated climate change is real. Its the left that will not and cannot compromise their position.

Read back thru the treads where many have tried to be civil, only to be met with harsh reality of the left.

Equally nonsense

 

[AccessBlaster]

Equally nonsense

I would expect nothing less.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Galaxiom, you said this in the context of comments that water vapor was the REAL culprit in global climate change:

This is surely the most pathetic excuse put forward to justify doing nothing.

No, it isn't, but you can't see it as a suggestion to direct attention to a place where you MIGHT be able to do some good. Whereas focusing on the wrong answer is a sure way to be a loser.

Proof of the concept of focusing on the wrong thing being a disaster? WWII and Adolf Hitler's fixation that "the real invasion" would come through Pas de Calais rather than Normandy. And when the invasion came, he was quoted WEEKS AFTER THE LANDING as saying, (in German, of course) "It is a feint. They will attack through Pas de Calais."

Want another case of focusing on the wrong thing leading to bad results? How about being any one of the folks who bought in to the phlogiston theory of heat? How did that work out, eh?

Greg, I know you feel strongly about this, but I can't seem to find a way to explain it to you that your eggs are all in one basket, and it is the WRONG basket.

Is our climate changing? Yes. Is part of that change global warming with the concomitant increase in heat-exchange energy flows causing crazy weather? Yes. Is it all due to CO2? Here I have to say I think the math does not bear up to a cause-and-effect standard of proof. Water vapor is a better candidate but the question remains as to whether that would involve anthropogenic sources. CO2 levels might well be an effect rather than a cause given that water can absorb CO2 (and usually does, which is why oceanic pH isn't 7, but rather sits slightly on the acidic side of things.)

 

[Steve R.]

While this this does not have a direct relation to claims of global warming, it does relate in that it shows that science can be subverted by incessant politically correct thinking.

Woke Math In Seattle​

In Seattle, the city’s public schools have decided that everything, even mathematics, has to be seen through the lens of oppression and racism.

It appears that the lenses of oppression and racism have already been raised by the global warming community. The Environmental Movement Needs to Reckon with Its Racist History

Indigenous peoples and people of color are disproportionately affected by our global climate crisis. But in the mainstream green movement and in the media, they are often forgotten or excluded. This is Tipping Point, a new VICE series that covers environmental justice stories about and, where possible, written by people in the communities experiencing the stark reality of our changing planet. (by Julian Brave NoiseCat)

Given that some of global warming crowd are demanding that science be viewed through the subjective lenses of oppression and racism. How can we ever trust the data? (Especially when governmental agencies such as a school system demands that it reflect a certain bias and grants are given to generate biased data.)

PS: Just to add a bit of humor. Controversial Studies Say It’s OK to Eat Red Meat. So what was "bad" for you yesterday is now "good" for you. At least until a new study is done to contradict the prior studies. Ad infinitum.

 

[Mike375]

We niw have the kids that are Extinction Rebellion protesters They block all the traffic in Sydney and other cities laying on the road. Some glue themselves to the road.

Last night on TV they interviewed and older leader and she gave "climate change" about 10 seconds and then went on to the left, white supremists etc. and etc. Obvioulsy the climate change is not only about money but also round up the left into a single force.


If I had even the slightest inkling than man made climate change was true and a problem it has now been eliminated.

Of course the way blokes like Galaxiom go on it is a 2 +2 = 4 science and always precise and that is another aspect that tells me it is all bullshit. Actually it is a convenient science because if you do research you can come with about any variation that suits your cause or the bullshit story you would like to put forward.

I wonder what will happen to that Greta Thunberg girl in 2 or 3 years time when none of the alarmist emergency has not happened. Maybe she will be able to sue her parents or other adults for child abuse. There will be plenty of dollars availabe from that exercise.

 

[Mike375]

Just to add a bit of humor. Controversial Studies Say It’s OK to Eat Red Meat. So what was "bad" for you yesterday is now "good" for you. At least until a new study is done to contradict the prior studies. Ad infinitum.

I saw that one.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

We've got this guy in the UK, Piers Morgan, I'm not a fan, but I did find this clip amusing... The woman he's talking to is Extinction Rebellion Co-Leader Skeena Rathor, normally very capable of defending herself!

See Time Index 5:50

https://youtu.be/8ISePLL1wcw?t=351

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

The Town I live in Newbury needed a bypass! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury_bypass Anyone who ever drove through Newbury could have told you it needed a bypass! any little hiccup, any holiday, Newbury ground to a halt.

This was getting on for 20-years ago, so my recollection is not perfect, but I do remember going into Newbury One Sunday.

In those days most of the shops were closed on Sundays, so all the car parks would normally be empty. However on this particular day I couldn't find a place to park. Every place was taken by a protesters car!

These protesters were "anti-road protesters" and here they were infesting the whole town with their automobiles! So shallow, so hypocritical and that clip reminds me. It's got nothing to do with the climate change, is all to do with making themselves big and important, and taking a stab at the establishment...

There's no need for anyone to worry, climate change has always happened, will always happen, and although so I'm sure human activity is playing a part, I'm also convinced that humans will sort it out.

 

[Mike375]

We've got this guy in the UK, Piers Morgan, I'm not a fan, but I did find this clip amusing... The woman he's talking to is Extinction Rebellion Co-Leader Skeena Rathor, normally very capable of defending herself!

The ones in Australia are the same.

At the last election a woman who is your tpical lefty climate changer won the seat and her platform was all climate change. She was also backed by a big money lefty group called Get Up.

However, she drives a 7 seater petrol SUV. If she had any brains and with Get Up behind her she would have had her house covered in solar panels and a windmill or two in the backyard so she could charge an electric car and run the house. Of course she has now become a complete irrelevancy in parliament.

One of the things the climate scientists in Australia like to blow their horn about is increasing severe cyclones in our north. However, unfortunately for the them the Bureau of Meteorology shows just the opposite. So they will only ever appear on the left wing media since of course they never bring up such numbers

Remember when at first, many years ago it was Global Warming but that did not pan out so they went to Climate Change

 

[Mike375]

I don't know about other countries but in Australia these Extinction Rebellion people have been very successful at swinging the average person that was sort of midway on man made climate change to a position of it must be all bullshit.

Even our own climate change science specialist only ever comes up with stuff like "that just proves you don't understad climate change science". I suppose he does that because you pull up any scenario you like from the climate change science crowd.

 

[Vassago]

The things that people suggest for reducing human causation in climate change also reduce negative environmental impacts in the long run. Regardless of personal position on climate change and the impact humans have on it, I still have yet to have someone explain to me why we can't leave a better Earth for the future by reducing pollution and looking at some of these proposals for reasons that have nothing to do with climate change.

 

[Mike375]

The things that people suggest for reducing human causation in climate change also reduce negative environmental impacts in the long run. Regardless of personal position on climate change and the impact humans have on it, I still have yet to have someone explain to me why we can't leave a better Earth for the future by reducing pollution and looking at some of these proposals for reasons that have nothing to do with climate change.

Ok, assume the whol world from tomorrow is powered by windmills and solar panels then that will be one huge number of them. What happens to them when renewal time comes.

Apart from all the bird deaths with windmills I have often wondered what impact their will be on weather etc. because of what would be one huge number of windmills.

Just use America and then take all the electricity generated per day and then how many windmills would that need?

I am sure there are many other considerations. What about all the batteries used for storage, what happens to them at the end. What about the material to make the batteries.

Wind mills and solar panels simply do not grow out of the ground like trees.