3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To all those claiming that man made climate change is a fact- if it was actually agreed on by all scientists there wouldn't be any dispute, but it's not, is it?

At this point there is virtually no dispute. But if your criterion means that if even one scientist out of thousands disagrees, then there is a valid ongoing dispute.And please don't chime in with how some lone scientist disagreed with everyone and they turned out to be right. That's like claiming that because someone won the lottery, it makes good financial sense to buy lottery tickets.

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do tell? How many people on the planet and how many use twitter?

I don't use it at all, ergo it has zero influence over me, and I am part of society.

Just because you don't use Twitter that doesnt mean you aren't affected by it. Stories that are promulgated there can make their way to other media.

Off topic troll post removed

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Just because you don't use Twitter that doesnt mean you aren't affected by it. Stories that are promulgated there can make their way to other media.

To which I ignore as much as Twitter. I ignore all Social Media and Legacy / Corporate / Democratic operative media.

Just now, Menken said:

To which I ignore as much as Twitter. I ignore all Social Media and Legacy / Corporate / Democratic operative media.

So, you don't believe that a lot of right wing stuff has been promulgated on Twitter?

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

So, you don't believe that a lot of right wing stuff has been promulgated on Twitter?

Lol your question so loaded and biased.

 

Do I believe what was published in the Twitter files with the company documentation and quotes? Yes. The people involved and in question are denying none of it.

34 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Yes that is what happens, but it's the lefties that were in control of all the media until Musk.

And they've been voting in the wokes, but now you're all crying because Musk doesn't care who posts what.

Which is why censorship by one side is wrong.

But allow everyone to post their nonsense and it all equals out.

Well, with your references to “wokes” and “crying lefties” and other jargon, you’ve lost me. I get my information, on climate change and other issues, from professional journalists, and if you’re equating information posted on Twitter with information posted by the New York Times or the BBC, I think you’re misleading yourself. There has always been a conservative media, but in the past it tended to follow the same journalistic standards as the liberal media; with some exceptions, that’s no longer the case. Don’t create a false equivalence.

5 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

I get my information, on climate change and other issues, from professional journalists,

 

and if you’re equating information posted on Twitter with information posted by the New York Times or the BBC, I think you’re misleading yourself.  

All of them woke lefty!

 

Used to work for BBC TV news, all the stories were lefty nonsense.

And censored by the Brit security forces (he sat at my desk).

But my press card was good for getting off speeding stops.

Just now, BritManToo said:

All of them woke lefties!

But people posting opinions you agree with regardless of their qualifications, stated or not, are credible?

18 minutes ago, Menken said:

To which I ignore as much as Twitter. I ignore all Social Media and Legacy / Corporate / Democratic operative media.

Oh. So where do you get your news -- some 400-pound couch potato blogger who lives at his mother’s house? (One of Trump’s better lines, although I think he was talking about hackers, not bloggers.)

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

That's because when it comes down to the actual science, JonnyF and fellow travelers have got nothing.

There is no solid, inconclusive and in controvertible evidence that global warming is a man-made created trend.

 

None

 

Snow has returned to California and the state is awash with water.

 

It's not about climate or environment it's about money. Fortunes will be made and lost as consumers are forced into this new technology. There's plenty of oil for the next 200 years

 

Moreover as was pointed out earlier you have all of the same people crying about climate change flying around in private jets and living in mcmansions. It's basically fraud.

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

But people posting opinions you agree with regardless of their qualifications, stated or not, are credible?

Nobody is credible.

Trust No One!

4 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

Oh. So where do you get your news -- some 400-pound couch potato blogger who lives at his mother’s house? (One of Trump’s better lines, although I think he was talking about hackers, not bloggers.)

Ah, the ghost of Trump...

 

Blogs. Economic, and political blogs.

16 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

But people posting opinions you agree with regardless of their qualifications, stated or not, are credible?

No!

 

I just want all sides to be able to state their perceptions of an issue.

 

Are you smart enough to taking information and process it yourself? If so, why can't you trust others to be able to do the same for themselves? How is it that I've made it through scores of years and it is only now when I perhaps the most wise that I am also the most questioned... Usually by ill-educated and far younger people that I have absolutely nothing in common with.

 

2+2=4 after that all else follows

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

Apart from the fact that 99.99 percent of climate research on the issue supports Anthropogenic Climate Change, you've made some great points.

Your evidence for this statement?

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Those terms were chosen to cast the widest possible net since those are the terms most widely used by denialists. He was actually trying to make sure that none were missed

But if it's  peer reviewed research  you want, here's a list of all I could  could find of those done in the last decade.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467616634958

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ERL....16j4030M

 

Let's just say that the aren't supportive of deniers stances.

 

If you like I can also share with you the stance of several leading scientific organizations on the issue.

 

Confirmed by another analysis of more recent papers

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

 

"Our results confirm, as has been found in numerous other previous studies of this question, that there is no significant scientific debate among experts about whether or not climate change is human-caused. This issue has been comprehensively settled, and the reality of ACC is no more in contention among scientists than is plate tectonics or evolution. The tiny number of papers that have been published during our time period which disagree with this overwhelming scientific consensus have had no discernible impact, presumably because they do not provide any convincing evidence to refute the hypothesis that—in the words of IPCC AR5—'it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' [12], and, most recently in IPCC AR6—'it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land' [13]."

3 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

Your evidence for this statement?

He has provided links about it in previous posts. There's also one article linked in my post above this one. Good reading.

1 hour ago, Menken said:

Lol your question so loaded and biased.

 

Do I believe what was published in the Twitter files with the company documentation and quotes? Yes. The people involved and in question are denying none of it.

As Taibi or whatever his name is acknowledged, the laptop stuff was delayed by a day, and there was no evidence he'd seen of any govt involvement in the story

He also said this

Taibbi also noted that Twitter sometimes received requests from "connected actors" to delete tweets, with Twitter employees writing back, "handled." 

Taibbi wrote that requests came from "both parties," meaning Republicans and Democrats.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-files-matt-taibbi-bari-weiss-michael-shellenberger-elon-musk/

58 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Nobody is credible.

Trust No One!

So, where did your climate skepticism come from? Entirely your own, uninfluenced opinion?

53 minutes ago, Menken said:

No!

 

I just want all sides to be able to state their perceptions of an issue.

 

Are you smart enough to taking information and process it yourself? If so, why can't you trust others to be able to do the same for themselves? How is it that I've made it through scores of years and it is only now when I perhaps the most wise that I am also the most questioned... Usually by ill-educated and far younger people that I have absolutely nothing in common with.

 

2+2=4 after that all else follows

I don't care what people think but when they claim facts in an effort to influence others without making a considered and coherent argument or providing links to evidence I believe they deserve heavy criticism. It's not as if their misinformation is just their personal opinion and isn't damaging to others. Not by a long shot.

1 hour ago, Menken said:

There is no solid, inconclusive and in controvertible evidence that global warming is a man-made created trend.

 

None

 

Snow has returned to California and the state is awash with water.

 

It's not about climate or environment it's about money. Fortunes will be made and lost as consumers are forced into this new technology. There's plenty of oil for the next 200 years

 

Moreover as was pointed out earlier you have all of the same people crying about climate change flying around in private jets and living in mcmansions. It's basically fraud.

"Scientists have known for decades that the Earth is warming. The rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century is unprecedented over thousands of years.It is unequivocal that humans are causing the warming."

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/resources/climate-change-in-data/

 

And in a way, you're right, it is all about the money:

Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

It's just that the it's the denialists who were motivated by it.

 

 

 

58 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

Your evidence for this statement?

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467616634958

2 hours ago, Menken said:

I just want all sides to be able to state their perceptions of an issue.

 

Are you smart enough to taking information and process it yourself? If so, why can't you trust others to be able to do the same for themselves? How is it that I've made it through scores of years and it is only now when I perhaps the most wise that I am also the most questioned... Usually by ill-educated and far younger people that I have absolutely nothing in common with.

 

Well, I’m glad that you consider yourself wise after “scores of years” (so you’re at least sixty? I’m sixty-five and likewise still feel confidence in my ability to sort through and synthesize information). But I would hesitate to be too critical of “far younger people,” whose intelligence and ability to process information is often discounted by their seniors who disagree with them.

 

I’m sure you’re quite right in your statement that you have nothing in common with these younger people. But what you have *least* in common with them is this: in all likelihood you’ll be gone in twenty or thirty years (?? sorry if I’m misrepresenting your age), while they’ll still be around for decades longer, living on a planet whose environment is rapidly changing. They’re likely to see the worst of it; you won’t. So I would put far more value in what these younger people have to say about the matter, because their perspective counts more than yours does.

 

Just some food for thought …

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Yes that is what happens, but it's the lefties that were in control of all the media until Musk.

And they've been voting in the wokes, but now you're all crying because Musk doesn't care who posts what.

Which is why censorship by one side is wrong.

But allow everyone to post their nonsense and it all equals out.

Lefties control the media? You've obviously never read any Murdoch rag, or watched Fox News. Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity ring any bells?

It doesn't equal out when social media has 98% climate-denying cretins, and less than 2% people who actually respect science, facts, and evidence.

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

Those terms were chosen to cast the widest possible net since those are the terms most widely used by denialists. He was actually trying to make sure that none were missed

But if it's  peer reviewed research  you want, here's a list of all I could  could find of those done in the last decade.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467616634958

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ERL....16j4030M

 

Let's just say that the aren't supportive of deniers stances.

 

If you like I can also share with you the stance of several leading scientific organizations on the issue.

 

So an organization funded by the climate alarmist billionaire Bill Gates, one of the richest men on the planet has one of their staff create their own bespoke algorithm to conclude that 99.9% of people agree with Bill Gates.

 

I mean, who could possibly argue with that? ????

 

 

29 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

So an organization funded by the climate alarmist billionaire Bill Gates, one of the richest men on the planet has one of their staff create their own bespoke algorithm to conclude that 99.9% of people agree with Bill Gates.

 

I mean, who could possibly argue with that? ????

 

 

You’d first have to demonstrate the truth of your implied conspiracy.

Perhaps, given the topic of discussion, we should be asking who’s funding the anthropomorphic climate change deniers.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

So an organization funded by the climate alarmist billionaire Bill Gates, one of the richest men on the planet has one of their staff create their own bespoke algorithm to conclude that 99.9% of people agree with Bill Gates.

 

I mean, who could possibly argue with that? ????

 

 

For one thing the methods were open and transparent. For another I supplied three studies that were peer-reviewed that had nothing to do with Bill Gates.

They confirm that climatologists overwhelmingly accept that anthropogenic climate change is real.

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps, given the topic of discussion, we should be asking who’s funding the anthropomorphic climate change deniers.

The obvious suspect would be the fossil fuel industry. There's a lot of money at stake.

It's interesting the insurance industry is taking no notice of social media. If one lives on any coast or is more at risk of bushfires and storms, premiums in those areas have been rising progressively. It is now impossible to get insurance in particularly vulnerable areas.

Latest news is Fox will have to pay Dominion nearly  790 million ( USD ) for publishing lies about the 2020 election. It's not the end of Fox's woes, Smarmatic is suing them for 2.6 billion, same complaint. Murdoch has been a climate denier for a long time as well.

It's a pity the same can't be done with the climate deniers on social media, but then they are so dumb they probably don't have two 1 baht coins to rub together.