'Do your own research / I do my own research' has become code for conspiracy theory followers

[TropicalGuy]

48 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

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.

By those majority rational members here you are well resp cited indeed, mate. implementing those changes would require massive extra fossil fuel consumption. Can’t produce steel or elec. using wind / wave power.

Nuclear Power brought back might do it though…..  

[LA8RAT]

On 12/12/2021 at 12:20 PM, ozimoron said:

The statistical probability that every climate scientists (and not other scientists) are just faking it for the money is impossibly small. Or maybe vaccine scientists are too, I dunno. The mind boggles. Even harder to understand is how rational people believe it's true, like most other conspiracy theories. How did McInerney get to spout obvious lies on a Hannity show?

But it not every scientist is it.. The ones who speak out get instantly discredited. They are 

Activly encouraged to follow the narrative. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited for typo

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

16 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Don’t cooling cycles include natural temporary heating spikes ?

Like what? There are none that I have ever heard of.

 

16 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

agree that stopping or reducing the incredibly ecologically destructive meat farming industry is perhaps the biggest and simplest step but even that is super huge / complex politically so just won’t happen.

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.

 

16 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Also as India & China won’t cooperate it doesn’t matter who does. Co2 is a natural gas not pollution. 40% unnatural co2 absorbed naturally with the other 60% unbalancing whole planetary Co2 cycle ( global warming).

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.

 

6 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

By Politics I mean Free vs. Unfree States. Murdoch not stopping Biden cooperating & USA is reducing emissions significantly. BUT as the other biggies are not (India & China) it does not matter who does.

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.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, LA8RAT said:

But it not every scientist is it.. The ones who speak out get instantly discredited. They are 

Activly encouraged to follow the narrative. 

 

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.

[LA8RAT]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

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.

They tend to find what their funders want them to find. 

 

Don't be so bloody nieve. 

[EVENKEEL]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

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.

"smaller countries reduce their emissions, like Africa and Asia,"  I know what you mean, but hey we can't all be edumacated.

 

 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

 Nothing False stated. Said CC is Real . Human Cause: Partly, Yes. Said it is just too big & complex to presently resolve.” Utter” money- grubbing Fraud to pretend it can. JP served on UN CC Committee for YEARS. Hear Him Out at least ….the Politics alone are just insurmountable, let alone the subsequent utterly destructive Economics. Lay aside your cultish Ideals and get Real & Serious. “Solving” CC efforts are the literal Road To Hell.

You present no facts. just empty assertions. No, it is not too big and complex too solve. It's basic outline was "solved" about 50 years ago when models that connected rising CO2  levels to global warming were developed.

 

And if the Jordan Peterson you're speaking of is the Psychology Professor at the University of Toronto, , it is absolutely false that he served on the UN CC committee for years. Or, for that matter, that he served on it at all. And you claim to be doing your own research on the issue but can't even get that right?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, LA8RAT said:

They tend to find what their funders want them to find. 

 

Don't be so bloody nieve. 

Thanks for providing us with zero evidence to support your assertion.

The most prestigious scientific journals in the world, where research is subject to strict peer review, are actually conniving to have fake research published? Even the fossil fuel companies that once funded the fakers who opposed CO2 reductions, now admit that global warming is a result of the increase in CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases connected to combustion and the fossil fuel industry.

Stop making things up.

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

Don’t cooling cycles include natural temporary heating spikes ?

Why cooling cycles exactly are you referring to? 

[Saanim]

2 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

By Politics I mean Free vs. Unfree States. Murdoch not stopping Biden cooperating & USA is reducing emissions significantly. BUT as the other biggies are not (India & China) it does not matter who does.

Is the emission reducing mandatory also for the huge world armies?

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Why cooling cycles exactly are you referring to? 

Maybe the cooling cycle you're referring to is the one that climate change denialists claimed occurred after 1998? Just to clarify, 1997-1998 was a period in which occurred  a very powerful El Nino. During an El Nino, the ocean releases a huge amount of heat into the atmosphere. The average global temperature zoomed to a record high. So what denialists did was start with that year and claim lower global averages in the following years proved that global warming wasn't occurring. In fact, many of them predicted global cooling. How did that prediction pan out? out of the following 22 years, 10 now have a warmer average temperature than the one in 1998. Most of those years don't have the benefit on an El Nino. In fact, in 2020, a year that tied the all time global average, there was actually a La Nina, which exerts a strong cooling effect on the atmosphere.

[ozimoron]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Why cooling cycles exactly are you referring to? 

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.

 

Quote

Earth has experienced cold periods (or “ice ages”) and warm periods (“interglacials”) on roughly 100,000-year cycles for at least the last 1 million years. The last of these ices ended around 20,000 years ago.

 

Over the course of these cycles, global average temperatures warmed or cooled anywhere from 3° to perhaps as much as 8° Celsius.

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.

[TropicalGuy]

29 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You present no facts. just empty assertions. No, it is not too big and complex too solve. It's basic outline was "solved" about 50 years ago when models that connected rising CO2  levels to global warming were developed.

 

And if the Jordan Peterson you're speaking of is the Psychology Professor at the University of Toronto, , it is absolutely false that he served on the UN CC committee for years. Or, for that matter, that he served on it at all. And you claim to be doing your own research on the issue but can't even get that right?

Presenting a hypothesis from big picture. What Facts are Missing ?
Only one JP. View You Tube video “ JP on Climate Change”.

Outdated CC “Outline Models” are not solutions. 
what are your “ solutions” then, in outline ?

accounting for real world Politics, Economics and Tech.

wont the cure be worse than the disease ? 

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Presenting a hypothesis from big picture. What Facts are Missing ?
Only one JP. View You Tube video “ JP on Climate Change”.

Outdated CC “Outline Models” are not solutions. 
what are your “ solutions” then, in outline ?

accounting for real world Politics, Economics and Tech.

wont the cure be worse than the disease ? 

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

[TropicalGuy]

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

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.

Yes, that’s what I just read online re earth cooling / warming cycles….

now understand the big problem is that we have experienced a too rapid 100 year man -made warming period during what should be and may still be, a cooling period. 

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Presenting a hypothesis from big picture. What Facts are Missing ?
Only one JP. View You Tube video “ JP on Climate Change”.

Outdated CC “Outline Models” are not solutions. 
what are your “ solutions” then, in outline ?

accounting for real world Politics, Economics and Tech.

wont the cure be worse than the disease ? 

Before we get there, since you claim to be a researcher, can you please share with us the evidence that proves your claim that  "JP served on UN CC Committee for YEARS".

[TropicalGuy]

he.claimed that at start of said Video. 

[TropicalGuy]

Going now to dive in on the provided NatGeo link “ How CC Models Got So Accurate they won Nobel Prize” …subject so huge for me I need that start so thanks……might later check that NA:SA link too .

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

he.claimed that at start of said Video. 

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.

 

 

 

Quote

Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny in the scientific community;^[6][7][8] he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over The Skeptical Environmentalist, and the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited."

Quote

In 2014, the Australian Government offered the University of Western Australia $4 million to establish a "consensus centre", with Lomborg as director. The university accepted the offer, setting off a firestorm of opposition from its faculty and students, and from climate scientists around the world. In April 2015, the university reversed the decision and rejected the offer. The government continued to seek a sponsor for the proposed institution.^[54] On 21 October 2015, the offered funding was withdrawn

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

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

he.claimed that at start of said Video. 

 You're easily convinced. At least when it comes to those whose views you want to believe.

[TropicalGuy]

Just finished those NatGeo & NASA articles. Sound Physics & Corrected Observations reconfirmed those old models as remarkably accurate.  
 

Shocking that JP lied on camera about his “ UN Committee  “ work. He’s sound enough within his area but that’s undermined by his religious apologist stance……and now this lie.

 

Problem remains though. How to fix CC / GW …….? 
 

 

[rattlesnake]

Funny how people who do their own research before buying a new car, house or phone are "smart consumers" but people who do their own research before willing to undergo a medical experiment are "conspiracy theorists"

[TropicalGuy]

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 You're easily convinced. At least when it comes to those whose views you want to believe.

No reason to disbelieve his on camera claim & findings.made sense.

Still see no CC “solutions”. Except impractical “reduce deforestation “ or “use more clean renewable energy”…… yes but HOW ? Practice has to follow Theory …..or Forget It. New Tech to Release Excess CO2 into Space ? Nuclear Power Increased ? 

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Problem remains though. How to fix CC / GW …….?

It can't be "fixed" with current technology in the sense that warming will continue even if we reduced CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow. At best we can slow down the progression in the hope that tomorrow's scientists will find a solution. One such possible solution to reverse the trend is large scale CO2 extractors powered by nuclear fission. Doing nothing is not an option. We need to cut all fossil fuel use as fast as possible even though it will cause economic pain. We are in this situation because warnings by scientists dating back to the 70's were not heeded by politicians who are blind to long term issues and don't want to risk voter backlash. Now that voter backlash will come from the increasing number of anti baby boomers who want change so we have some hope. We need to accept that the process will necessarily be expensive and involve sacrifices. Otherwise we doom humans to extinction, literally. We also need to stop deforestation and set about replanting millions of trees.

 

A bad analogy. You are in a speeding car and lose control. You are headed directly for a tree and can see that you will definitely hit it. Do you apply the brakes or not?

[The Hammer2021]

On 12/15/2021 at 6:53 AM, LomSak27 said:

It is called SARCASM. If unfamiliar with the word, then look it up.

Sarcasm is based on pitch and voice tones and rarely works in written form. If you have to tell people you are being sarcastic your effort has failed

[placeholder]

56 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Funny how people who do their own research before buying a new car, house or phone are "smart consumers" but people who do their own research before willing to undergo a medical experiment are "conspiracy theorists"

Sad how some people don't understand that scientific research is about actually creating knowledge whereas the kind of research involved in buying a house is nothing of the sort.

That said, do you think that a person who has no experience of building or designing a house is qualified to judge the structural integrit of a building? Do you think that a structural engineer earned a degree by learning nothing  that isn't obvious and easily accessible to a layman? 

Do you understand that there is such a thing as expertise?

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

By those majority rational members here you are well resp cited indeed, mate. implementing those changes would require massive extra fossil fuel consumption. Can’t produce steel or elec. using wind / wave power.

 

Sure about that?

Fossil Fuel–Free ‘Green’ Steel Produced for the First Time

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/green-steel-produced-first-time-180978550/

[rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Do you understand that there is such a thing as expertise?

I do, I am myself an expert in my field.

 

I believe people should use their intelligence to make their decisions and that all expert viewpoints should be heard, not just those who go along with the doxa.

[Thunglom]

The internet has brought about the return of the snake oil sales man. These guys relied on being able to travel from town to town with impunity. If they ere exposed as a fraud, they could just move one and start gain elsewhere. This is more or less what happens on the internet. Once you've posted your nonsense, even if it is exposed, it is still there and you can just move on and repost elsewhere.

 

Identifying these people and their nonsense isn't always as easy as it might seem. These people always like to have a grain of truth in whatever cockamamy theory they are promulgating and a large part of the general public are not conditioned to be critical enough of what they encounter on the net or other media.

Margaret Thatcher in the UK deliberately prevented media studies being part of the national school curriculum.

Many people don't realise that critical thinking is a real thing - they just assume they do it.... but of course they don't. As an under graduate we were encouraged to take a course in critical thinking.... it is life-changing. May I suggest that anyone who is interested watch this video - https://herebedragonsmovie.com

 

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? - at least in part they use cynicism to cover ignorance. From tin hats to moon landings to Covid, MMCC and Brexit, there are themes that run through all them - usually a secret ruling elite who have an "agenda" - (a very popular word with theorists) and a naive believe in simple single solutions, and a love of dichotomising. Believers in conspiracies often have an inflated sense of their own intellectual competence. A lot of these "believers" supplant science and skepticality with emotion - a lot easier to follow and totally impossible to refute. There is also the belief that by taking alternative viewpoint, they ae being skeptical, but this just shows they don't understand skepticality as a mainstay of critical thinking. 

 

A phrase you hear often from this "dark side" - is "fair and balanced" - as soon as you hear that you know you are onto a loser. There is no such thing as "fair and balanced" - it is an excuse for flakey reporting of extreme views without proper reference. All news is more that fact and involves analysis, but so often these days that is replaced by a politically motivated policy of disinformation.

An example might be if you have one person who says it's raining and other who says it isn't. Te medias job is not to give them both equal airtime - te job of the media is to LOOK OUT OF THE WINDOW AND SEE WHO"S TELLING THE TRUTH.

 

 

[Thunglom]

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I do, I am myself an expert in my field.

 

I believe people should use their intelligence to make their decisions and that all expert viewpoints should be heard, not just those who go along with the doxa.

"Expert" is such a cliché and usually a sign that a participant in a discussion has run out of argument themselves so attempts this as an ad hominem…

 

Expert - a reverse fallacious appeal to authority, often used by people as ad hominem to attack the messenger rather than the message, or simply as a tool for “sealioning”.

 

People without any argument seem to believe that they can discredit anyone who says something they don’t agree with or didn’t know, by suggesting they aren’t or should be an “expert” or asking them why they think they are an “expert”. As if any opinion other than an “experts” must automatically be invalid…

 

Common examples of why people  believe they are experts themselves…..

Healthcare, Teaching and education and Road safety seem to be prime examples of this – 

·      Because they went to hospital, they are  be “experts” on healthcare

·      because they went to school, they are “experts” on education

·      because they can drive a car, they are “experts” on road safety.