NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

[Uncle Gizmo]

Clearly the people making decisions like this have no concept........................

Re:- Clearly the people making decisions like this have no concept....

I believe it was senator Kennedy interrogating these climatologist thingies... In a senate hearing ... Possibly?

One of the questions he asks these climate activist promoters whatever you want to call the...?????

He asked them how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere? What percentage?

They are on the climate activism bandwagon, blindly following the current doctrine and they have no idea!!

They know the story, they know that anyone that says any different is wrong and dangerously wrong and should be silenced! As they have not listened to the scientists. But they themselves don't have the sense to at least do some basic research.... They just state that the scientists know best!!!

No ---- it's not true --- the scientists will tell you what you pay them to tell you!!!!

Mind you I am a little skeptical because the big business with the smoking issue were paying scientists to say that smoking did no harm.....

What I don't understand is why are the oil companies not putting millions into creating a message to tell us that CO2 does no harm? That just doesn't make sense to me.....

I am under no illusion, I haven't got a clue!

And a lot of things don't make sense....

I suppose that's to be expecting when you superimpose politics over science...

It should be the science controlling the politics

 

[The_Doc_Man]

the scientists will tell you what you pay them to tell you!!!!

A minor correction, if you please. The definition you gave is for "applied science." "Pure science" doesn't do that because their grant funding doesn't name a preferred finding.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

This little video might upset a few folks:

 

[Isaac]

I have to ask: How many decent lawyers do you know who DON'T somehow end up making a fortune?

Tons. Even back in 2003 when I went to law school, the administrators were constantly trying, in very subtle and quiet ways, to prepare students for the reality of practicing law - meaning that anyone lacking a major 'drive' or with mediocre networking or academic skills was probably going to end up with the same life as the local plumber - solid, but far from rich.

I know one lawyer, my sister, who is a public defender, bless her heart. She definitely isn't rich, but she generously brings her clients personal items, answers calls and texts at all hours to try to get someone a bail hearing, deals with folks with horrible attitudes who think she is the enemy while she's trying to help them, etc. etc. She is a saint and a lawyer.

 

[Isaac]

Can I admit something both petty and funny? Some threads just 'say it all' in their topic Title. Consequently, either annoying or satisfying me.

The title of this thread is satisfying, because it makes its undeniable point right in the title. "I'm in love with ChatGPT", that's one that annoys me.

I say this tongue in cheek, it's really fine

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Climate "Science" | Dr. Richard Lindzen | EP 320​

Here is a fact-checked summary of the key points from the discussion between Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Dr. Richard Lindzen on climate change:

• Climate Narrative Critique:
  • Lindzen disputes the prevailing narrative that CO2 increase leads to an existential climate threat. He agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but argues its warming effect is negligible and not an existential risk.
• Scientific Consensus:
  • The claim that "97% of scientists agree" is often misinterpreted. Lindzen points out that while many scientists agree CO2 causes some warming, this doesn't equate to agreement on the magnitude or the implications of this warming, particularly not on the assertion of an existential threat.
• Feedback Loops and Tipping Points:
  • Lindzen is skeptical about the existence of significant positive feedback loops that would amplify CO2 effects. He also argues against the concept of climate tipping points in a system as complex as Earth's climate, which he describes as having many degrees of freedom.
• Impact of Funding on Science:
  • He discusses how funding has influenced climate science, suggesting that the narrative supports funding which in turn attracts more scientists to the field, potentially biasing research towards alarmism.
• Climate Models:
  • Lindzen expresses skepticism about the reliability of climate models due to the complexities of fluid dynamics and the necessity of making assumptions about unresolved scales, which can lead to inaccuracies.
• Historical Climate Variations:
  • He mentions that climate has always varied, citing examples like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, suggesting that current changes are within historical norms.
• Future Climate Outlook:
  • Lindzen predicts that over the next 50 to 75 years, we should expect similar climatic variations as seen historically, with no drastic changes like cities underwater or significant shifts in climate zones.
• Career Impact:
  • He shares his experience of facing challenges in publishing and funding due to his skepticism of the climate change narrative, highlighting how this might stifle scientific debate.
• Education and Public Perception:
  • The discussion touches on how climate change is taught to children, potentially stoking fear without providing a balanced view of the science.
• Institutional Pressure:
  • Lindzen notes how institutions like MIT and professional societies can speak for their members without necessarily representing their views, often aligning with administrative narratives rather than scientific consensus.

This summary reflects the key points of disagreement and critique Lindzen has with the mainstream climate change narrative, emphasizing his belief in a more nuanced and less alarmist view of climate science.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Pat Hartman]

A number of the people who spoke with Trump at yesterday's meeting about the fires agreed that there was a lot of mismanagement and wanted Trump to give relief money with strings to ensure that something got done to fix the mismanagement and minimize the danger of future fires. I was heartened to hear that not all Californians had drunk the cool aid. Also, at least one of the people mentioned the gross negligence of the legislature working on funding anti-Trump legal teams rather than digging in to provide help and rule changes to facilitate the cleanup and rebuilding.

 

[Steve R.]

... wanted Trump to give relief money with strings to ensure that something got done ...

One "string" that has to be included is a demand that California rescind it's $50M lawfare campaign to "Trump Proof California". This is money that should be going to help rebuild California, not to continue the 8+ year maniacal lawfare against Trump. Democrats only play vicious hardball. Republicans need to start playing hardball.

 

[Pat Hartman]

It's too bad that Trump can't have private conversations. He could tell Newsome to shape up or he would see that his political career was over.