ozimoron

Those videos are click bait. He's using his skill as a clinical psychologist to induce people to watch his videos and profit by them. He once said this “I look at Bjorn Lomborg‘s work. I really like Bjorn Lomborg. I think he’s a real genius.” https://www.desmog.com/jordan-peterson/ Lomberg is the village idiot of climate change. The government at the time was headed by Tony Abbot, the most ridiculed PM in Australian history. The euphemism "consensus committee" was an attempt to legitimise climate change deniers. It didn't go well with the academic community. quotes from Wiki

How would he know it was safe?

Ever been in one? I have, it's terrifying, although I was in a house that was falling apart. Nevertheless, that typhoon was the strongest anywhere in the world this year. It would be terrifying no matter where he was.

I presume you are suggesting that these "outdated" CC models are incorrect? I'd like to see your evidence to support that claim. Here's what NASA thinks. Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/ How climate models got so accurate they earned a Nobel Prize Climate predictions were treated with heavy skepticism just 30 years ago, but they've become our main window into how global warming works. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-climate-models-got-so-accurate-they-earned-a-nobel-prize

The bottom line is that he and he alone (maybe also his dead partner) have the wallet address so it's his to keep.

I think he means the Earth's natural cooling cycles. The deniers like to trot out the fact that these cycles exist (true) and imply that we might be in one of them while neglecting to mention a crucial detail. The problem here is that the Earths temperature has increased approx 1.5 to 2 degrees in only 100 years, far faster than these natural cycles. In any case, we should be in a natural cooling cycle right now, not a warming cycle.

The bar for food in SE Asian countries is high. It would be hard to vote Filipino food as not being at the bottom of the list. I think Thailand is #1, followed by Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Burma, Cambodia in that order. I spent 24 years living in The Philippines and don't mind some of their dishes but they are not as good as those other countries.

I dispute that there is a single scientist in the world who has produced credible research discounting climate change or mankind's effect ion producing it. Furthermore, most of those who do engage in such research are normally found to be on some fossil fuel company's payroll. I have already linked articles to Peabody's involvement in pseudo science. But please prove me wrong, I am very willing to be convinced. I have just never seen any research that naysays the tens of thousands of credible climate scientists, nations institutions and universities, etc.

Like what? There are none that I have ever heard of. You're probably right but that's only because of the propaganda machine convincing the sheeple that the problem doesn't exist. If instead, the media portrayed just how dire the situation really is I'd be more optimistic. I don't really watch India so can't comment but China is actually cooperating. It has a case when it is still developing and hasn't caught up with the western hemisphere yet. The rate of economic growth in China is so high that it's actually very difficult to reduce emissions output compared to a country like the US where economic growth has pretty much peaked and it has more room to reduce emissions while still protecting it's GDP. Europe is the same. China has nevertheless set ambitious targets and was the first country to implement a carbon tax in it's most industrialised province. China also spends the most on green technology. While it is opening up new coal fired power plants (so is Japan), it is in the process of closing older, dirtier power plants. China produces half the CO2 emissions of the US and the per capita output is one of the lowest countries in the world. The US and Europe are rich countries because they produced the most emissions in developing their economies. They bear a greater responsibility to help fix the problem, including helping smaller countries reduce their emissions, like Africa and Asia, Australia is the absolute worst with a government that won't commit to a target reduction because it will upset Rupert and they know what that would mean.

I didn't want to make it political but mainly the right wing is resisting serious efforts at fixing the problem. Murdoch's media is one of the main offenders in pushing global warming skepticism. We are far beyond claiming that it isn't real or if it is then it isn't man made.

What part of climate change is not the result of human endeavour? Climate scientists are unanimously of the opinion that the planet is in a natural cooling cycle at present which is being overwhelmed by man made CO2 pollution and deforestation. https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-global-warming-merely-a-natural-cycle/a-57831350

I don't agree that economic upheaval is necessarily destructive. There are many jobs in green technology, far more than fossil fuels. West Virginians were promised a return to a golden (sooty) era but it didn't eventuate because so many of the mundane jobs like dump truck driving became automated. We could also stop grazing cows which is a third of our emissions right there. I know that sounds drastic but it's not destruction of humanity drastic. It's arguably a big step forward in improving human health but that would derail this thread so lets not go there. I'm just saying there's plenty we can do easily to quickly reduce our emissions. Electric cars and massive investment in solar, hydrogen and wind technology is another. I dispute that I am highly respected here lol.

How do you define solvable? Survival of the human race? Return to 1800's temperatures? Running up the white flag is NOT an option. There are plenty of things we can do to drastically slow down the rate of increase.

I'd suggest that anyone over about 55 or 60 should get an ultrasound to check their prostate. I am 67 and had some blood in urine one time so the doc sent me for an ultrasound. That showed I had BPH but I had no idea until they told me. I did notice over recent years that I urinate a lot but didn't connect the dots. After seeing this thread I ordered the stinging nettle root. It's possibly a bit early to tell if they are effective but I do notice I urinate a lot less often since taking them. Apparently almost all men suffer enlarged prostate as they grow older. Bottom line, if you are getting on in years, don't wait to be told, add this supplement to the long list of medications you already take.

This is the one you want. I paid a stinging AUD $22.50 per bottle on eBay in Australia. https://www.swansonvitamins.com/swanson-premium-stinging-nettle-root-500-mg-100-caps

That may be true but higher rates of efficacy have long been observed from mix n match. I recall reading a South Korean study months ago which said that AZ / Pfizer mix produced a 6x benefit over a double dose of either one.

Do you have any evidence that it didn't? Do you have any of your own research that proves or disproves any aspect of climate change? Do you just assume that it's a fraud because you can't verify the research yourself? Do you self medicate or trust the doctor? How about the engineer who built the bridge you drive over every day? Or the engineer who designed the plane that takes you to Thailand? We all trust experts just to be able to function in life. What makes covid or climate science any different, other than just politics? Nothing is the correct answer.

I don't ever read CNN and don't watch cable news. It's obvious that I do have a liberal bias but I prefer my media to be less biased and more factual. I think it's safe to trust peer reviewed research that's not contested. "Questioning" scientists who are properly published in reliable journals is a fools errand in my opinion. I also don't ever rely on a single source.

Very few of us can properly interpret scientific and medical research papers and rely on experts to "translate" them into language that us mere mortals can understand. That mainly involves the media. It's a matter of reading the media you can trust. MSM is called main stream media for a reason, it's the media that can be trusted and fact checked. If media isn't fact checked or has a bad rep from fact checkers, or appeals to only a fringe ( the "really intelligent" people ) or doesn't quote and reference source material and carry an endorsement from the source author then I reject it. It's not rocket science.

It's not surprising that climate change requires a global solution. This very fact underpins the right wing failure to acknowledge climate change as either real or a problem. Their politically motivated anathema to global cooperation or global organisations of any kind is the major impediment to getting anything done. This is also the reason why covid is likewise typically labelled a fraud or downplayed so as not to demand strong action. Opposition to the UN and WHO are manifestations of the problem. We often hear the alarmist cries of "world government" when nobody ever suggested such a solution nor would it be necessary. It is just a deflection to convince people that somehow global cooperation is evil. World cooperation is required to solve global problems. The planet is small. The world has often faced the need for global cooperation in the past, in the Spanish Flu, polio and smallpox epidemics and two world wars. Without this cooperation the human race is likely doomed. On climate change, the goal posts may have appeared to have moved but what has happened is that the situation is turning out to be far worse than politicians have been willing to acknowledge in an effort to appease the zealots. Far from "nothing on that yet" we actually see that his prediction will likely come true within this decade. Read the link below. We also see massive permafrost melts, record widfires, record tornados, 38c in the world's northernmost town this week, first time ever to rain on Greenland's ice shelf, disappearing glaciers in the Himalayas, record floods in Australia and the list goes on. Scientists insist that the problem is still solvable but every month we don't act makes it harder. Fossil fuel companies and their donations to right wing governments are the main impediment. What it needs is global cooperation and funding of the scale last seen in 1942 (as a % of GDP). https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/antarctic-ice-shelf-crack-raise-seas-feet-decade-scientists-warn-rcna8918

Rubbish, he dealt in stolen property like any other common criminal and he conspired to influence an election as a foreigner. These are crimes. Journalists do not usually engage in this kind of behaviour.

I don't know if he hated Hillary or not. His emotions are of no concern to me. I just want to know what he was doing communicating with Assange and Stone at the same time as he was accepting stolen emails from the Russians prior to the 2020 election. If he's innocent so be it but they weren't just friends. https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-reveals-roger-stone-was-directly-communicating-with-julian-assange-2020-4?r=AU&IR=T

He's guilty anyway, who cares. Conspiring with the Russians and Manafort to swing an election will get him life in any court. The right wing hated him but now he's their darling. There's enough evidence to convict him regardless of whether you think the court will be fair or not.

We do know, all things being equal, it is incredibly unlikely that the split of undecided will be statistically different from the respondents who had made up their mind. This simple statistical analysis was apparent to the author of the article. Your analysis that somehow the split will be significantly different or unknowable is simply flawed from a statistical point of view.

In this case it was both a plurality and most. basic statistical analysis can be applied to demonstrate that most people were not likely to travel.