Gee it's hot - The Climate Change discussion thread

[Muz]

I totally agree with you on all points you raised.

For example, in my main field of specialisation, after having researched and thought it through for many decades, I find people instantly dismissing the ideas, solely because it goes against what they've been taught. Very few people think and inquire.

Like fools who believe people were riding around with dinosaurs and platypuses walked to Australia, because it goes against their belief system?

Those non-thinking people?

 

[RIMB]

And so, if you are the typical non-thinking, non-inquiring type person, that would be the end of the story. You will enforce your "solar-driven climate change denial" - act like a mob, and slander anyone who steps out of line. Group-think.

Why do you need to put someone in a specific "if you are this then you think that" category in order to convey your own open minded and considered thinking?

With my own free will and imagination I have considered other possibilities. I have not said the sun is not to blame and I have not said the sun is to blame. I do not fit in either of your "solar denier" or "solar acceptor" groups. I do not form immovable black and white opinions on things that I do not fully understand or cannot fully know. I do not oppose everything that you believe in, and equally I do not agree with everything you say.

I, like so many others of my type, am an individual with self driven thought and consideration (yes, we're all individuals. Thanks Brian).

From my personal perspective, it would be nicer to simply read your opinions and ignore, agree, disagree, discuss without the essays, presentations and AI. But that is just how people like me think.

 

[Muz]

Why do you need to put someone in a specific "if you are this then you think that" category in order to convey your own open minded and considered thinking?

With my own free will and imagination I have considered other possibilities. I have not said the sun is not to blame and I have not said the sun is to blame. I do not fit in either of your "solar denier" or "solar acceptor" groups. I do not form immovable black and white opinions on things that I do not fully understand or cannot fully know. I do not oppose everything that you believe in, and equally I do not agree with everything you say.

I, like so many others of my type, am an individual with self driven thought and consideration (yes, we're all individuals. Thanks Brian).

From my personal perspective, it would be nicer to simply read your opinions and ignore, agree, disagree, discuss without the essays, presentations and AI. But that is just how people like me think.

Well there's your first problem.

I asked AI if there is such a thing as 'free will' and it said 'johnsmith is a fuckhead'.

 

[tsf]

Nothing to say on this .. All common sense

The Christian evangelicals that preach love and earth will never accept it because if they do their house of cards comes down. really its pure greedy evil

 

[zimbos05]

I totally agree with you on all points you raised.

For example, in my main field of specialisation, after having researched and thought it through for many decades, I find people instantly dismissing the ideas, solely because it goes against what they've been taught. Very few people think and inquire.

But what about the people who have thunk and inquired and deduced through research and science that climate change is driven by man?

 

[Lupi]

Nothing to say on this .. All common sense

The Christian evangelicals that preach love and earth will never accept it because if they do their house of cards comes down. really its pure greedy evil

where does this 97% of scientists agree figure come from?

 

[Lupi]

 

[johnsmith]

But what about the people who have thunk and inquired and deduced through research and science that climate change is driven by man?

When I was at university doing science-based studies, the core of science is to test any new theory based on fact and evidence.

Whereas, politics and money have corrupted the pure pursuit of science. The modern generation is taught that the "consensus has to be right" which bastardises the pursuit of science. These days you have university lecturers marking students down if their views are not aligned with Leftist-groupthink. (Widely reported on social media, and also young students tell me that happens in their courses in Australia).

Nothing in scientific theory teaches a student that the consensus is always right.

A quotation: "It’s easy to get consensus when you suppress dissent."

Your generation is making suppression of dissent as the norm.

So this "consensus is right - and anything against the consensus must be banned as misinformation" --- that is the dark-side of mankind seen in Soviet and communist oppression. And remember, the Soviet system was imposed by altruistic young people who had no clue of the consequences of their ideology.

On the other forum, there was a guy who said he's a university lecturer, and he said the current generation of students have generally no capacity for independent thought (my paraphrase of him).

We live a dark generation where anything idea that goes against the mainstream is discredited as "misinformation". For example, there's a guy on this forum who wanted be banned ---- that is your generation's way of establishing echo-chambers wherever you go.

Someone convinced you to discard what was the bedrock of youthful pursuit -- "I might disagree with you, but I'll fight for your right to say it". That's gone. Now people put on airs to explain how misinformation has to be censored -- rather than misinformation being challenged by open debate backed up by facts and evidence.

You have no idea how that spells the death knell of the age of knowledge.

 

[return_to_sender]

When I was at university doing science-based studies, the core of science is to test any new theory based on fact and evidence.

Whereas, politics and money have corrupted the pure pursuit of science. The modern generation is taught that the "consensus has to be right" which bastardises the pursuit of science. These days you have university lecturers marking students down if their views are not aligned with Leftist-groupthink. (Widely reported on social media, and also young students tell me that happens in their courses in Australia).

Nothing in scientific theory teaches a student that the consensus is always right.

A quotation: "It’s easy to get consensus when you suppress dissent."

Your generation is making suppression of dissent as the norm.

So this "consensus is right - and anything against the consensus must be banned as misinformation" --- that is the dark-side of mankind seen in Soviet and communist oppression. And remember, the Soviet system was imposed by altruistic young people who had no clue of the consequences of their ideology.

On the other forum, there was a guy who said he's a university lecturer, and he said the current generation of students have generally no capacity for independent thought (my paraphrase of him).

We live a dark generation where anything idea that goes against the mainstream is discredited as "misinformation". For example, there's a guy on this forum who wanted be banned ---- that is your generation's way of establishing echo-chambers wherever you go.

Someone convinced you to discard what was the bedrock of youthful pursuit -- "I might disagree with you, but I'll fight for your right to say it". That's gone. Now people put on airs to explain how misinformation has to be censored -- rather than misinformation being challenged by open debate backed up by facts and evidence.

You have no idea how that spells the death knell of the age of knowledge.

Get a job

 

[zimbos05]

When I was at university doing science-based studies, the core of science is to test any new theory based on fact and evidence.

Whereas, politics and money have corrupted the pure pursuit of science. The modern generation is taught that the "consensus has to be right" which bastardises the pursuit of science. These days you have university lecturers marking students down if their views are not aligned with Leftist-groupthink. (Widely reported on social media, and also young students tell me that happens in their courses in Australia).

Nothing in scientific theory teaches a student that the consensus is always right.

A quotation: "It’s easy to get consensus when you suppress dissent."

Your generation is making suppression of dissent as the norm.

So this "consensus is right - and anything against the consensus must be banned as misinformation" --- that is the dark-side of mankind seen in Soviet and communist oppression. And remember, the Soviet system was imposed by altruistic young people who had no clue of the consequences of their ideology.

On the other forum, there was a guy who said he's a university lecturer, and he said the current generation of students have generally no capacity for independent thought (my paraphrase of him).

We live a dark generation where anything idea that goes against the mainstream is discredited as "misinformation". For example, there's a guy on this forum who wanted be banned ---- that is your generation's way of establishing echo-chambers wherever you go.

Someone convinced you to discard what was the bedrock of youthful pursuit -- "I might disagree with you, but I'll fight for your right to say it". That's gone. Now people put on airs to explain how misinformation has to be censored -- rather than misinformation being challenged by open debate backed up by facts and evidence.

You have no idea how that spells the death knell of the age of knowledge.

So basically, "If it does not agree with my view, it must be corrupted in some way"

"my generation" is making suppression of misinformation the norm.

 

[johnsmith]

So basically, "If it does not agree with my view, it must be corrupted in some way"

"my generation" is making suppression of misinformation the norm.

Ok, I concede to you.

In the old days before internet, it was easier to suppress information because the Main Media could frame the information how they wanted the people to believe.\

But now, with the internet and social media, the same intent to suppress and control is there. Human nature has not changed for thousands of years. So these efforts to stifle free speech are just a continuation of how the world has been from the beginning.

You realise that in over 6,000 years of recorded human history, there have been only a handful of peep-holes, each of a couple of hundred years, where there were freedoms for the common man to speak. Aside from that, mankind has been under the jackboot of controlling powers.

You seem to have zero concept that the freedoms you inherited from past generations are rare as hens teeth, in the span of human history. And every time there's been freedoms, the forces of humanity rise up to suppress it.

Think of who the people are who've been the ones, through history, that suppress free speech. In those people's minds, they're doing the best for the people. On these forums, tsf admits to being a communist. Tsf fully thinks, in his mind, that what he does would be best for the people.

 

[Muz]

You realise that in over 6,000 years of recorded human history, there have been only a handful of peep-holes, each of a couple of hundred years, where there were freedoms for the common man to speak. Aside from that, mankind has been under the jackboot of controlling powers.

This is who your dealing with people. Somebody that thinks the world is 6000 years old, was completely flooded (killed everyone bar a handful) and dinosaurs and people lived at the sand time.

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

I don’t really follow celebrities… but personally I have changed some personal habits in the attempt to reduce the temperature.

I encourage fellow readers to do the same:
- ride my e-scooter to most places
- use a low flow shower head
- I avoid flying when possible
- Go easy on the brakes and acceleration when I do drive my Prius.

Maybe switch to a normal shower head dude,.... your hair seriously needs more volume.

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

Stats without context don't really tell us that much.

As far as I understood it, the major swings in temperature were created by an event of some sort. Whether it was an external factor like space junk or internal factors like earthquakes causing massive volcanic upheaval, something may well have triggered each event regardless of the sun's effect. Movement of the earth's structure alone can cause major effects - like possibly even sinking a civilisation as the plate itself sank lower and the waters flooded in.

Remember that stuffy day 415 million years ago when that thing did that thing and suddenly it got really bloody hot? Wasn't it a random alignment of translucent space stuff for 100 years that created a lens and magnified the sun's rays onto earth? Or was it a freak shaping of the liquid in our atmosphere to increase the sun's effect on the polar ice caps? Oh that's right - nobody remembers what it was because all we have are temperature stats.

We can say what temperatures were, but we can only make 'educated' guesses about cause. We can only make educated guesses on matters that we know exist too. With our limited exposure to the universe we cannot possibly conceive of things so far outside our understood reality that may have had causal linkages - so we make up what we can from what we know. Hello Sci-Fi authors who can be as close to the cutting edge of thinking as our experts when it comes to random shit happening.

Is it not possible though that mankind, as an event, has played some role in this warming cycle regardless of the sun? Is space junk from us enough in itself to capture and hold heat that would otherwise have dispersed into space? It takes so little to start a process.

My favourite biblical quote is:
"And God said, let there be light. And there was light. And lo, you could see for f*cking miles."

My dude, don't bother... Seriously its wasted keystrokes.. You are replying to a (I think) person who uses an article with data going back 485 million years to refute evidence of a scientifically accepted global issue yet in the the same thread argues the case for a 6000 year old universe.... I mean.... don't waste your time....

 

[johnsmith]

My dude, don't bother... Seriously its wasted keystrokes.. You are replying to a (I think) person who uses an article with data going back 485 million years to refute evidence of a scientifically accepted global issue yet in the the same thread argues the case for a 6000 year old universe.... I mean.... don't waste your time....

Irrespective of how old you think the earth is ... it is a separate topic regarding how far back recorded human history dates back. The recorded human history goes back about 6,000 year.

Even if I write things against people, my prime focus is facts and data.

 

[Muz]

Irrespective of how old you think the earth is ... it is a separate topic regarding how far back recorded human history dates back. The recorded human history goes back about 6,000 year.

Even if I write things against people, my prime focus is facts and data.

It's directly relevant.

If you can't evaluate the data for something as basic as the age of the earth being magnitudes of order older than 6000 years then it proves you are a crank. An unthinking crank at that.

Go away.

 

[Muz]

My dude, don't bother... Seriously its wasted keystrokes.. You are replying to a (I think) person who uses an article with data going back 485 million years to refute evidence of a scientifically accepted global issue yet in the the same thread argues the case for a 6000 year old universe.... I mean.... don't waste your time....

Hahahaha. Great point. Just noticed that after you brought it up. What a fuckhead.

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

Irrespective of how old you think the earth is ... it is a separate topic regarding how far back recorded human history dates back. The recorded human history goes back about 6,000 year.

johnsmith, please do me the courtesy of keeping me out of your polemic attitude to this forum and the debates at hand... You can't be civil enough to hold an honest discourse on any topic (at least with me, so far) and when pressed to offer a simple reply go of on tangents that defy all credibility...

I think your claim to be a "seeker of truth" is a disguise you present to strangers on the internet for whatever personal reason you may have and Im no longer keen to feed that side of your personality... I wish you well in your life and will ignore your (with as much self control as I can muster) pointed jibes and pseudo-scientific postings...
As for matters of religion... well, quite frankly, I pray for you.. I know it can't be easy believing you are the self appointed arbiter of truth in an uncaring world... I would suggest you focus your evangelism on an audience that perhaps may be more willing to accept it, there are plenty of weak willed, morally impoverished people in this world that DON'T frequent football forums online.... this isnt fertile ground for you and despite your cult's insistence on making you pay to spread the word, it is a waste of your time.... at least thats what it seems like from the response you get....

 

[Muz]

johnsmith, please do me the courtesy of keeping me out of your polemic attitude to this forum and the debates at hand... You can't be civil enough to hold an honest discourse on any topic (at least with me, so far) and when pressed to offer a simple reply go of on tangents that defy all credibility...

I think your claim to be a "seeker of truth" is a disguise you present to strangers on the internet for whatever personal reason you may have and Im no longer keen to feed that side of your personality... I wish you well in your life and will ignore your (with as much self control as I can muster) pointed jibes and pseudo-scientific postings...

This is my problem. I should ignore him but against my better judgement I keep getting dragged back in.

I've never used an 'ignore' function online before but I'm tempted.

 

[johnsmith]

This is my problem. I should ignore him but against my better judgement I keep getting dragged back in.

I've never used an 'ignore' function online before but I'm tempted.