DeSantis Pushes Back on Climate Change’s Role in Stronger Storms

[placeholder]

42 minutes ago, Globalres said:

Scientist prove what they are paid to prove - in many cases

So, to your way of thinking, there's a massive conspiracy by climatologists to disseminate falsehoods about climate change. Conspiracy thinking is the last refuge of the cornered and clueless.

[pomchop]

2 hours ago, Globalres said:

Scientist prove what they are paid to prove - in many cases

Sure lets come up with some conspiracy theory about how some mysterious force is paying off scientists to lie about the global warming issue....i bet a google search could no doubt find some keyboard warrior claiming that bill gates pays off hundreds or thousands of scientists all over the world to manipulate the data....and if it is on the internet then it must be true...because we all know that people who post conspiracy theories are true experts.

[impulse]

3 hours ago, Globalres said:

Scientist prove what they are paid to prove - in many cases

 

There's a great YouTube by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder that explains it pretty well.  It's titled My dream died, and now I'm here.

 

I can't post a link because YouTube's blocked here, but it's easy enough to find by artist and title. I downloaded the video and that's how I know the title.

 

Basically, she discusses the process behind getting funding to do meaningful research in physics, and how it's been corrupted by corporate money.  She specifically talks about physics, but it's the same with health care, and pretty much any subject where there are corporate and political interests controlling which research gets funded and which gets squelched.

 

[Sir Dude]

Well, we can always go back to the dark ages and not emit anything. I wonder if all these eco-morons can deal with no more international travel, no cheap supermarket goods, no avacado toast or coffee, little global trade and shipping, no cheap electricity or fuel, no abundant food of every description etc. etc. etc. It's about acceptable transition, and that will take decades if not longer, unless all you eco-militants are happy with world and societal collapse, along with a general implosion of law and order etc... yeah, good luck idiots. There's no Harry Potter wave a magic wand and it's all fixed suddenly... unbelievably naive.

[Globalres]

39 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

There's a great YouTube by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder that explains it pretty well.  It's titled My dream died, and now I'm here.

 

I can't post a link because YouTube's blocked here, but it's easy enough to find by artist and title. I downloaded the video and that's how I know the title.

 

Basically, she discusses the process behind getting funding to do meaningful research in physics, and how it's been corrupted by corporate money.  She specifically talks about physics, but it's the same with health care, and pretty much any subject where there are corporate and political interests controlling which research gets funded and which gets squelched.

 

I am certainly no expert in this field at all, but I do question whom is actually giving us all this information:

eg. The majority of National Institutes of Health grants go to conflicted researchers.

the FDA drug approval department is 75% funded by pharma.  In other words the FDA is funded by the very institutions that they are supposed to inspect.  The USDA guideline committee on Nutrition has 95% of the advisors funded by food or pharma.  
The American diabetics Association accepts money from Coca Cola, this association dictates the standard of care for Diabetis.

Industries that let out fluoride has municipalities paying for fluoride to be inserted into our tap water.  Lucky for said industry not to have to pay for removing it themselves.  It was now proven that fluoride lowers IQ in children and several states in the US is forbidding the addition of fluoride to household water.

 

All I’m saying is that I am sad that I cannot trust the scientists these days and I repeat, they prove what they are paid to prove.  We must look at who is paying the scientists!  
Pfizer scientists told us that we would not catch COVID if we took their vaccines - you know the rest of this story.

 

To name another “discipline” statistics: here’s another one that can prove anything you want.

There seems to be no honour these days, just mass media spewing out what they are paid to say, the one who has the most money gets their message out.  Nobody is searching for the truth - just what they want to see which obviously in the end is money.

[MarkBR]

4 hours ago, Globalres said:

Scientist prove what they are paid to prove - in many cases

Bad scientists do this.  Need to be aware of who the scientists work for.  Science knowledge can be analysed statistically.  Experiments can be repeated, if the data comes up that shows the same thing then all well & good with the theory.  If the data comes back with knowledge that disagrees with the prevailing main theory then questions need to be asked about the theory and how it describes the 'reality' that experiment investigated .

[placeholder]

54 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Well, we can always go back to the dark ages and not emit anything. I wonder if all these eco-morons can deal with no more international travel, no cheap supermarket goods, no avacado toast or coffee, little global trade and shipping, no cheap electricity or fuel, no abundant food of every description etc. etc. etc. It's about acceptable transition, and that will take decades if not longer, unless all you eco-militants are happy with world and societal collapse, along with a general implosion of law and order etc... yeah, good luck idiots. There's no Harry Potter wave a magic wand and it's all fixed suddenly... unbelievably naive.

Or you can emerge from that dark cloud of ignorance you dwell in and learn that none of the authorities in the position to do something about climate change are recommending drastic overnight solutions. If you bother to do a little bit of web surfing you could learn what means of remediation are being enacted or proposed.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Globalres said:

Scientist prove what they are paid to prove - in many cases

An intellectually vacuous statement.

[placeholder]

On 10/12/2024 at 4:25 PM, Globalres said:

Why don’t we start by cleaning land and oceans from all plastic?
Why don’t we start finding a better way for industry to get rid of their toxins rather than spilling out in our rivers and lakes and sea?

Why don’t we find a better way than spraying all our crops with glyphosate?  

Why don’t we invest in new household water cleaning plants instead of recycling antibiotics, estrogen and toxins in household water?

 Why don’t we stop vaccinating our livestock with antibiotics, growth hormones that we later consume?

 Why don’t we feed our livestock with what they are supposed to eat.  If they were permitted to eat what they normally eat there would be less belching and farting, that some people are apt to blaim on climate change.

  Why do we keep using monocrop systems that deplete our soil of minerals?

 Why do we continue to use artificial nitrogen to fertilise our soils, when we know it kills many minerals? 
Why do we still let pharma companies judge their own science results, thus allowing more and more toxins in so called medicine?  

Why to we allow chemtrails in trying to create rain?  

All of  the above is harmful to all living beings.  
You are all screaming about the population numbers being to high, yet you complain about allowing birth control.  Why not educate ALL population about birth control? 
Why don’t we correct our own living environment before throwing money at stuff that we don’t really know how well it will work?  

All the above is within our means to do, why don’t we do it? 💰💰💰

Why don't you start your own thread instead of trying to derail this one?

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, thaipo7 said:

Climate change is the biggest fraud brought against all the people of the world.  Of course the climate changes.  It it didn't how can we get an average for the date.  Al Gore has gotten rich in this BS.  If Obama believed his BS on Climate , would he have bought a $15 million property right in the water only to be washed away in a few years.  I thing the oceans were going to rise during the next 10 years.  He is going on owning the property for 8 years.  Is the water level higher.  Look at the Plymouth rock set in place in 400 years ago.  It the water level any higher??  Did man cause the ice age  10,000 years ago.  How can people fall for this.  Look at the two foremost experts.  Greta and AOC.  Forget the scientist who don't buy into this.  Make sense Tug?

 

So much nonsense from you. Here for instance is a link to an article about houses being demolished or moved in Nantucket because of the encroaching ocean.

https://archive.ph/1i1pO#selection-1165.0-1173.1

People with lots of money are still buying homes that are threatened because losing them is not a big deal.

As for "I thing the oceans were going to rise during the next 10 years."...the ocean is rising. Please share with us what climatologist claimed that the ocean was rising so fast around that Obama's home was going to be swallowed up by the sea in 10 years. 

 

What garbage dump of a website did you get that info about Plymouth rock  from? In fact, Plymouth rock is not located on its original site.

 

"However, Plymouth Rock has been moved multiple times since 1620. According to Donna D. Curtin, Executive Director of the Pilgrim Hall Museum, the rock has "unquestionably" been relocated several times, including its complete excavation and relocation onto the shoreline in 1920. This fact complicates the perception that it remains in its original location, as it has been moved and altered multiple times over the centuries.^[5][6]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Rock}

 

^{Other than these few quibbles, thanks for the great post.}

 

 

 

 

 

[Luuk Chaai]

On 10/12/2024 at 6:41 AM, Tug said:

That’s part of the problem with trumpers they can never ever admit a mistake or wrong doing they allways double down so be sure to flush twice on Nov 6!!!

 

yeah  climate changes.   something that never happened to the earth before   ( at least the lefties will try and convince you )

 oh wait .... blame the ice ages on dinosaur farts 

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era 

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Luuk Chaai said:

 

yeah  climate changes.   something that never happened to the earth before   ( at least the lefties will try and convince you )

 oh wait .... blame the ice ages on dinosaur farts 

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era 

Given that your objection is that same one has been repeated ad nauseam by anthropogenic climate change denialists, it's apparent that there is a serious blind spot denialists have in understanding very basic math. The issue isn't whether or not the climate is changing, but the rate of change.

For example, if you were shopping to open a savings account and a bank were to offer you 2 savings accounts that were the same in every way except that one offered a 2% rate and the other a 10% rate, would it be a matter of indifference to you which one you would choose? 

[Globalres]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

Given that your objection is that same one has been repeated ad nauseam by anthropogenic climate change denialists, it's apparent that there is a serious blind spot denialists have in understanding very basic math. The issue isn't whether or not the climate is changing, but the rate of change.

For example, if you were shopping to open a savings account and a bank were to offer you 2 savings accounts that were the same in every way except that one offered a 2% rate and the other a 10% rate, would it be a matter of indifference to you which one you would choose? 

 

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

Given that your objection is that same one has been repeated ad nauseam by anthropogenic climate change denialists, it's apparent that there is a serious blind spot denialists have in understanding very basic math. The issue isn't whether or not the climate is changing, but the rate of change.

For example, if you were shopping to open a savings account and a bank were to offer you 2 savings accounts that were the same in every way except that one offered a 2% rate and the other a 10% rate, would it be a matter of indifference to you which one you would choose? 

An intellectually vacuous analogy

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, Globalres said:

 

An intellectually vacuous analogy

Intellectually vacuous? No. But to teach someone they have to accept that they don't understand a concept. In your case, it's rate of change. Climate change was happening very slowly over most of the last 2 millennia. Then it sped up. You don't seem to grasp the significance of that fact.

[Luuk Chaai]

18 hours ago, placeholder said:

Given that your objection is that same one has been repeated ad nauseam by anthropogenic climate change denialists, it's apparent that there is a serious blind spot denialists have in understanding very basic math. The issue isn't whether or not the climate is changing, but the rate of change.

For example, if you were shopping to open a savings account and a bank were to offer you 2 savings accounts that were the same in every way except that one offered a 2% rate and the other a 10% rate, would it be a matter of indifference to you which one you would choose? 

.. another view point ..  you and I will definetly not be alive to see the end point of this change ..     "but" ..... if you and others want to place it on mankind's abuse of mother earth,   start with total / dead stop / don't buy it / use it / aquire anything from China and India..   the 2 biggest polluters of the enviroment ...  how's that for putting a dent in the process ? !

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Luuk Chaai said:

.. another view point ..  you and I will definetly not be alive to see the end point of this change ..     "but" ..... if you and others want to place it on mankind's abuse of mother earth,   start with total / dead stop / don't buy it / use it / aquire anything from China and India..   the 2 biggest polluters of the enviroment ...  how's that for putting a dent in the process ? !

Deflecting much?

[impulse]

On 10/12/2024 at 11:32 AM, placeholder said:

What's that got to do with your ridiculous assumption that change is going to be drastically over a few years?

As for the Krakatoa thesis, what lunatic source did that come from?

 

You caught me being lazy.  I only mentioned Krakatoa, but there have been dozens of volcanic eruptions that caused (for example), the little ice age, the plagues of the bible, and other climate events.  Here's just a few of the hundreds of links about how volcanoes, in these cases recent ones, have changed the climate.  Some profoundly, others not so much.  

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255700466_Climate_effects_of_the_1883_Krakatoa_eruption_Historical_and_present_perspectives

 

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.6958

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925385-000-krakatoa-eruption-cooled-the-world/

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/439675a

 

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/climate-change/krakatoa-heralded-atmospheric-sciences-era-of-global-disaster-today-it-would-cool-world-climate-but-not-mitigate-it

 

I couldn't find a link to the article I read that claims we're still recovering from the Little Ice Age.  It's been long enough that it doesn't show up in my interweb history.

 

So I'm not convinced by the science that climate change can be stopped by taking my money and giving it to someone else, or making me buy an EV, or windmills, or... or...