Do we care about the enviroment !!! ????

Jim said:
Fred Singer also studied "second hand smoke" and determined the EPA "cooked the books" to come to the conclusion that it's harmful. He was a brilliant man in his day. Too bad he came to pick and choose the data to make his points, instead of... you know, following the data.

I think we can now safely say that second hand smoke is bad for you.
Click to expand...

Wow, one guy being a dork somehow makes 40% of scientist idiots.
 
Wordman said:
Wow, one guy being a dork somehow makes 40% of scientist idiots.
Click to expand...
No, the dork "claimed" 40%. He never backed up his 40% with actual proof there's that many scientists not believing.
We have literally thousands of scientists in agreement... 97% according to NASA. To claim that's only 60% without offering actual proof of that claim goes beyond dork...
 
Jim said:
No, the dork "claimed" 40%. He never backed up his 40% with actual proof there's that many scientists not believing.
We have literally thousands of scientists in agreement... 97% according to NASA. To claim that's only 60% without offering actual proof of that claim goes beyond dork...
Click to expand...

He didn't claim, he said he "would guess." Of course, when something is dogma, most will not come out publicly and speak against the dogma.

As for second hand smoke, both things can be true: 1) the US government's claims are "junk science" and 2) second hand smoke does increase the risk of cancer.

The US government is also the main entity pushing the warning "used motor oil causes cancer in lab animals" despite the study making this claim being a bunch of lab rats bathed in used oil 24-hours a day with no chance they might clean themselves, or that saccharin "causes cancer" despite the fact it only seems to cause cancer in lab rats who have been force-fed massive quantities of the stuff.

Nonetheless, that was a single website grabbed in a single moment which you then used to sidestep that you had committed argumentum ad hominem concerning Dr. Essex while ignoring the pertinent quote from the IPCC.

Mr. Alinsky would be proud...
 
I recall about 20yrs ago there was a letter circulated by some org... prolly ol' Fred's org, that had thousands of signatures of "scientists" saying climate change was a hoax.
On closer study, that list was chock full of "Dr of Economic Studies" and other "scientists" who had no professional clue on climate change. Many of the scientists, when contacted, said they never signed onto the letter. Hocus pokus.

Here's the bottom line, if there's scientific evidence climate change is a hoax, where is it?!? 97% of climate scientists (thousands) are in on the grand conspiracy to dupe us common folk and no one has concrete evidence it's happening? A bit much to swallow, what?
All this social media bullshit, all these "dork" scientists.... all these fuckin' "experts"... where's the evidence climate change is a hoax??
 
Jim said:
I recall about 20yrs ago there was a letter circulated by some org... prolly ol' Fred's org, that had thousands of signatures of "scientists" saying climate change was a hoax.
On closer study, that list was chock full of "Dr of Economic Studies" and other "scientists" who had no professional clue on climate change. Many of the scientists, when contacted, said they never signed onto the letter. Hocus pokus.

Here's the bottom line, if there's scientific evidence climate change is a hoax, where is it?!? 97% of climate scientists (thousands) are in on the grand conspiracy to dupe us common folk and no one has concrete evidence it's happening? A bit much to swallow, what?
All this social media bullshit, all these "dork" scientists.... all these fuckin' "experts"... where's the evidence climate change is a hoax??
Click to expand...

Keep missing... erm... avoiding the point.

The IPCC says future climate state cannot be predicted.

But let's go deeper than that. Show me one time they put the climate data from whenever they thing they have good data up until say 1950, and the models accurately "predicted" what actually occurred in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020. I've never heard of such. In fact, as I recall they have many different models which predict many different things, and they pick the models they 'think' will be correct.

Show me one model which accurately models clouds and water vapor (the worst greenhouse gas we have).

Show me one model that can pinpoint the conditions which cause a nondescript African thunderstorm to turn into a hurricane (P.S. they can't even do it in retrospect).

I'm not saying we should be stupid.

I'm not even saying we aren't contributing to changes in the climate.

What I am saying is, 1) we aren't sure to what extent, and, more importantly, 2) we don't care (if we did, we'd start dismantling cities as the huge thermals they are, and which absolutely can and are affecting the global climate).

P.S. you want to go back and address your obfuscation of that IPCC quote?
 
What happened to the new ice age coming in 1970?

Prominent scientists? Naw, just a theory what may happen, and agreed upon by experts.

Before that, rock&roll poisoning the youth
Before that commies
Before that nothing to fear but fear itself
spanish flu
german hun hoard

etc

I find many times at work, the expert engine "engineers" are knowing just enough to be dangerous.
Backed by management, they push the stupid designs to production.

We are all fucking sheep.
 
Jim said:
I recall about 20yrs ago there was a letter circulated by some org... prolly ol' Fred's org, that had thousands of signatures of "scientists" saying climate change was a hoax.
On closer study, that list was chock full of "Dr of Economic Studies" and other "scientists" who had no professional clue on climate change. Many of the scientists, when contacted, said they never signed onto the letter. Hocus pokus.

Here's the bottom line, if there's scientific evidence climate change is a hoax, where is it?!? 97% of climate scientists (thousands) are in on the grand conspiracy to dupe us common folk and no one has concrete evidence it's happening? A bit much to swallow, what?
All this social media bullshit, all these "dork" scientists.... all these fuckin' "experts"... where's the evidence climate change is a hoax??
Click to expand...

And no, I don't necessarily believe the statistics sponsored by and put our by the same government who includes 12-18 year old gang-bangers as "victims of gun violence."
 
Wordman said:
Nonetheless, that was a single website grabbed in a single moment which you then used to sidestep that you had committed argumentum ad hominem concerning Dr. Essex while ignoring the pertinent quote from the IPCC.

Mr. Alinsky would be proud...
Click to expand...
I guess there's a fine line between attacking a person to change the subject, and questioning his professional credibility. To commit an ad hominem, I need to change the subject, no?
Since the the subject is still climate change/hoax....
You know, I give up. I just read the comments what just popped up here, and I give up. You deniers win, it's all a hoax. No, I don't need evidence, you've convinced me.
 
Jim said:
I guess there's a fine line between attacking a person to change the subject, and questioning his professional credibility. To commit an ad hominem, I need to change the subject, no?
Since the the subject is still climate change/hoax....
You know, I give up. I just read the comments what just popped up here, and I give up. You deniers win, it's all a hoax. No, I don't need evidence, you've convinced me.
Click to expand...

Ooh! Name calling!! Yay!

I guess you missed (IGNORED) that part where I said "I'm not saying we should be stupid. I'm not even saying we aren't contributing to changes in the climate."

Let me put it this way, if you think the scientific community as a whole, when looked at throughout history, isn't just as corrupt as the Roman-Catholic Church, you're worshiping at an altar which was never erected upon solid ground.
 
Jim said:
I guess there's a fine line between attacking a person to change the subject, and questioning his professional credibility. To commit an ad hominem, I need to change the subject, no?
Click to expand...

You took a quote which simply said we need to stop being afraid and start thinking, which had nothing to do with climate change per se, and IGNORED the part where the IPCC said "prediction of future climate states is not possible." So yes, you changed the subject (though such is not at all necessary to commit argumentum ad hominem).
 
The government cares about the environment:

"Marais's team found that black carbon emissions will more than double after just an additional three years of space tourism launches, and that particles emitted by rockets are almost 500 times more efficient at holding heat in the atmosphere than all other sources of soot combined, resulting in an enhanced warming climate effect. While current loss of ozone due to space launches is small, the impact of space tourism launches may undermine the recovery in the ozone layer experienced after the success of the 1987 Montreal Protocol which banned substances that deplete the Earth's ozone layer."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220713-how-to-make-rocket-launches-less-polluting
 
Wordman said:
P.S. you want to go back and address your obfuscation of that IPCC quote?
Click to expand...
That quote was from 2001. You think that maybe the IPCC has gathered more data and changed their conclusions since then? Or are we back to the "flat earth" theory on science? 24yrs of study thrown out the window because of a conclusion reached in the past? We're stuck with the data from the 20 century and we can't evolve our thinking? You really want me to put any credence behind your meme? Seriously??

Show me a quote from 2024 that says the same.

I've read the 2024 IPCC paper. Hint: they don't say that.

I ignored your "meme" about the IPCC because it's about as relevant today as the Flat Earth Society's conclusions ... completely irrelevent.
 
Jim said:
That quote was from 2001. You think that maybe the IPCC has gathered more data and changed their conclusions since then? Or are we back to the "flat earth" theory on science? 24yrs of study thrown out the window because of a conclusion reached in the past? We're stuck with the data from the 20 century and we can't evolve our thinking? You really want me to put any credence behind your meme? Seriously??

Show me a quote from 2024 that says the same.

I've read the 2024 IPCC paper. Hint: they don't say that.

I ignored your "meme" about the IPCC because it's about as relevant today as the Flat Earth Society's conclusions ... completely irelevent.
Click to expand...

The earth's climate is no longer a coupled, non-linear chaotic system? Please show me where they determined they were so wrong!

And, of course, the saints in the current IPCC would never bow to the prevailing climate, right? Just like Harvard, Yale and Princeton would never kowtow to the prevailing theories on race..

oh, wait...

And Newtonian physics are completely irrelevant today, right? So is algebra, for that matter (it was invented in the 9th century, obviously not relevant today).

P.S. it wasn't a "meme," it's a quote. An actual, factual, quote.

Explain Glacier Girl

Explain why the earth's climate is no longer a coupled, non-linear chaotic system.

Explain why they still can't accurately model clouds.

Explain why they still can't accurately predict hurricanes.

Explain why the Outer Banks haven't had a storm inundate the Outer Banks to a level capable of lifting a ship from the ocean and dropping it into the bay despite storms getting "much stronger" in recent history.

Show me a test where they test the models by using data up until say 1950, and the models accurately "predicted" what actually occurred in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020.

I'll wait...
 
Jim said:
That quote was from 2001. You think that maybe the IPCC has gathered more data and changed their conclusions since then? Or are we back to the "flat earth" theory on science? 24yrs of study thrown out the window because of a conclusion reached in the past? We're stuck with the data from the 20 century and we can't evolve our thinking? You really want me to put any credence behind your meme? Seriously??

Show me a quote from 2024 that says the same.

I've read the 2024 IPCC paper. Hint: they don't say that.

I ignored your "meme" about the IPCC because it's about as relevant today as the Flat Earth Society's conclusions ... completely irelevent.
Click to expand...

You see, I don't doubt that you're coming at this in good faith, and with the idea of finding fact. I don't bash you or your position. I question the data, the way in which it is gathered, and the way in which it is interpreted, but I acknowledge I can be wrong and that I might have to change my opinions.

You call people like me names so you don't have to engage (and you feel far superior).
 
I'll leave you with this: in 1900 scientists were sure they understood tropical storms. They were so sure they denigrated the efforts of the "non scientists" in Cuba who said otherwise. That September, between 8,000 and 12,000 people paid with their lives for the arrogance of those scientists. Turns out, and despite what the large majority of scientists said, a tropical storm could move from Cuba to Texas and unleash ungodly death and destruction.

Not that some of the scientists didn't still claim it must have been a different storm...
 
Back
Top