On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:44 PM, John wrote:

The thing about Trump is he thinks climate change / global warming is a hoax.

Here's the thing: global warming is a red herring. Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real - dumping pollution into the environment still sucks balls. So at the behest of the bigmedia propaganda organs, perfectly well-intentioned people on both sides endlessly argue over dodgy, politicized science. Yet regardless which side is right about global warming, *almost everyone* agrees that pollution blows oats and should be reduced.

From: John Newman

I disagree, vehemently.  Global warming is not a red herring.  Permafrost is melting, oceans are rising and acidifying, and the future for big >coastal cities is looking very bleak indeed.  There is a scientific consensus on this issue.

I don't see how there can be "scientific consensus" unless there are accurate computer models which show how up climate temperature increases as a product of addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.  Both qualitatively and quantitatively.  How much do these problems represent?

From Lord Kelvin:

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.” http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/166961-when-you-can-measure-what-you-are-spe... There is also the prospect of adding SO2 to the high atmosphere to counteract heating, which could be a very cheap solution.             Jim Bell

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:47:38 -0400 Joshua Case wrote:

There is abundant research, of the scientifically valid kind, showing that the climate is changing, and indeed it would be strange if it were not.

Yep. So all that 'scientific research' is, if not meaningless, pretty much irrelevant. 'Climate change' is a natural fact that has been acknowledged by humans for thousands of years.

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:35:15PM -0400, John wrote:

On August 16, 2016 5:13:16 PM EDT, juan wrote:

...

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:47:38 -0400 Joshua Case wrote:

...

There is abundant research, of the scientifically valid kind, showing that the climate is changing, and indeed it would be strange if it were not.

Yep. So all that 'scientific research' is, if not meaningless, pretty much irrelevant. 'Climate change' is a natural fact that has been acknowledged by humans for thousands of years.

Anthropogenic climate change is what we are talking about. At least,

Then please be persistent in using that terminology (which correctly names what you intent to be talking about).

it's what im talking about. Not normal natural climate change or even climate change related to non human events e.g. a large asteroid hitting the earth.... Humanity has been and continues to accelerate the rate of change dramatically, and dangerously.

That's the kind of assertion, which those who value science, will always kick back at. The best "you" (those pushing the anthropogenic climate change 'science' agenda) have is computer "models" - which use as inputs (demand) in this case assumptions, projections, and a lack of enough detailed historical facts to otherwise avoid such assumptions and projections, and so remain as scientific "theory" and not scientific "facts". Yes we are impacting the environment (pollution), yes we are pumping various gases into the atmosphere, no we cannot be certain of anthropogenic global warming OVER AND ABOVE 'natural' causes (the sun cycles, natural/ cyclical changes in the earth, more?) Vehemently claiming "theory" is not theory and is actually "fact" does not make said theory, facts, and only serves to highlight the possibility of "agenda". Now, in your case, the agenda may be nothing more or less benign than an intention to "waking people up out of ignorance", but is nevertheless, whatever it is, an agenda (thorougly guilty of such vehemence myself in my younger years - such as at least 4 months ago...).

All that "scientific research" is anything but meaningless. Since when do you put science in quotation marks like it's a big fucking joke?

Don't mix up "reasonable mathematical model giving weight to a scientific theory", with "scientific fact". Around these parts (you may have noticed) you'll keep coming unstuck on that one :)

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 06:26:39PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

From: John Newman

...

I disagree, vehemently.  Global warming is not a red herring.  Permafrost is melting, oceans are rising and acidifying, and the future for big >coastal cities is looking very bleak indeed.  There is a scientific consensus on this issue.

I don't see how there can be "scientific consensus" unless there are accurate computer models which show how up climate temperature increases as a product of addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.  Both qualitatively and quantitatively.  How much do these problems represent?

From Lord Kelvin:

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.” http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/166961-when-you-can-measure-what-you-are-spe...

There is also the prospect of adding SO2 to the high atmosphere to counteract heating, which could be a very cheap solution.             Jim Bell

THANK you!! "Global warming" gets bandied around as though it is "scientific" or even more ridiculously "accepted science". And another thing !! <waves old wooden walking sticdk> it was always called Global Warming, except then it got called Global Anthropogenic Temperature Changes, except then it got called Global Climate Change, except before in the 60s or 70s (dang, I can't remember which) it was called Global Cooling - front page Time Magazine articles an all. Take THAT yung whipperyschapperies! Dang Global Scientific Marketers just can't decide which terms to even use - that sure gave me confidence in their certinty!

...

Dang Global Scientific Marketers just can't decide which terms to even use - that sure gave me confidence in their certinty!

Har har! Dang ol science it must be a CONSPIRACY yeah that's it!! What has science ever done anyway?

Fucking ridiculous.

Assertion != fact. Scientific theory != fact. Even, solid mathematical model != fact. "Science" as some of us prefer to use the term, is where facts, actual measurable testable facts, are determinable by testing and verifiable by someone else running the same test and making the same measurement, resulting in taking/ measuring the same value (same result), thus verifying said fact as a fact, a value, a measurement, and more than merely assumption arising from some scientific theory. Perhaps someone else can try to explain this in a clearer way? Perhaps it's a difficult thing to express clearly in English..

...

Dang Global Scientific Marketers just can't decide which terms to even use - that sure gave me confidence in their certinty!

Har har! Dang ol science it must be a CONSPIRACY yeah that's it!! What has science ever done anyway?

Fucking ridiculous.

When we cling to certainties (even "facts" mind you) is it that we express an attachment which may be causing us to not see something? How about when we react in an emotional way, to quotes from history's "great minds", rather than respectfully deconstruct the fundamental problem which we assert is hidden in that historical quote, or that definition (e.g. a definition of the word 'science')? Is a call to non-emotionally consider what is being said, in the precision of the words being used, a rational, hey even possibly 'scientific' call to the listener/reader? Could it be that those challenging a dearly held assertion, do so not from any contrariness, not from any obtuse stubbornness nor even belligerance, but from a heartfelt desire to seek 'the truth' and to discover the true facts behind an assertion made by another? Can we truly say we are engaging in conversation when we presume stupidity on the part of another, when they ask explicitly or implicitly for "more data, please"? Could it be that those asking for "more data" have spent considerable genuine personal time and energy searching for said data facts in support of said assertions and "scientific theory parading itself as scientific fact" and are at the point of frustration and "well, I've looked, could not find, so bloody well put up or shut up already"??? Is there any possibility that our personal programming be our Western schooling system is so ingrained, so deep, that parts of it are simply unseen by our not so humble selves? And could it be that such deep programming is in fact used by wealthy oligarchs around the world who meet behind closed doors to discuss and execute intentions to spin certain stories based on "the glory, power and untouchable truth of 'science'" to their personal and group/corporate economic benefit? And would it be reasonable to say then when such oligarchs have such meetings and execute such intentions, that they have "conspired" together to improve their profits and control in the world? Could the fruits of such endless closed door conspirings be the reason the "conspiracy theorist" had to be demonised, socially shunned and turned into the politically incorrect pariah?

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:55:24 -0400 John Newman wrote:

I disagree, vehemently. Global warming is not a red herring. Permafrost is melting, oceans are rising and acidifying, and the future for big coastal cities is looking very bleak indeed. There is a scientific consensus on this issue.

Truth is not reached by 'consensus'. That's not science but groupthink. Also, it's not called global warming anymore. The new name which has been in use for more than a couple of years is 'climate change'. And of course the climate is changing, It has been chaning for millions of years and it will keep changing. It just so happens that 'climate change' is a perfect excuse for government to control every single movement of every person on the planet. Way better than 'terrorism'. Jason does have a point about pollution. But of course, even the 'war on pollution' can be used as a tool for political control. Another thing : old crony capitalists have recycled themselves as green crony capitalists and how they get billions in subsidies for being 'green'.

But yes of course pollution does suck ass...

-- John

...

On Aug 16, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Jason McVetta wrote:

...

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:44 PM, John wrote: The thing about Trump is he thinks climate change / global warming is a hoax.

Here's the thing: global warming is a red herring. Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real - dumping pollution into the environment still sucks balls. So at the behest of the bigmedia propaganda organs, perfectly well-intentioned people on both sides endlessly argue over dodgy, politicized science.

Yet regardless which side is right about global warming, almost everyone agrees that pollution blows oats and should be reduced.

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:46:01AM +0300, Georgi Guninski wrote:

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 01:55:24PM -0400, John Newman wrote:

...

I disagree, vehemently. Global warming is not a red herring. Permafrost is melting, oceans are rising and acidifying, and the future for big coastal cities is looking very bleak indeed. There is a scientific consensus on this issue.

But yes of course pollution does suck ass...

There was a thread about this in April 2016: "Do you notice significant persistent change in climate?".

I see the climate changes in my lifetime so it is "fact" for me.

I see no one disputing climate change. Quite the contrary.

Likely someone profits from this, but someone will try to profit from the destruction of Earth too.

Indeed.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:24:56 +0300 Georgi Guninski wrote:

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:01:06PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

...

I see the climate changes in my lifetime so it is "fact" for me.

I see no one disputing climate change. Quite the contrary.

Don't follow climate statistics (some may say numerology), but natural climate change should be _very slow_

Why? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFdZ9t4Y5hQ

IMHO and not detectable in a single lifetime at all, except at the border of something big.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 19:04:40 +1000 Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:34:18AM -0300, juan wrote:

...

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:24:56 +0300 Georgi Guninski wrote:

...

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:01:06PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

...

I see the climate changes in my lifetime so it is "fact" for me.

I see no one disputing climate change. Quite the contrary.

Don't follow climate statistics (some may say numerology), but natural climate change should be _very slow_

Why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFdZ9t4Y5hQ

:D Perfect! Thanks..

You see, we conspiracy theorists all think alike. Or perhaps we are just one sockpuppet? =P

...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFdZ9t4Y5hQ

Would you explain what is this? I avoid videos.

chaotic magnet demonstration

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:34 AM, juan wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFdZ9t4Y5hQ

Oh please. That's exactly what you'd get from a guy, who believes Allah wills it, launching objects *randomly by hand* via some random suspension jig into a system of magnets whose permanence, strength, and possibly even location is further modified by each run... of course it's going to be chaotic. It's random for sure, but not due the classical and quantum reasons he may have thunk it to be. "So the magnetic pendulum is a chaotic system because it is extremely sensitive to its initial position." s/is a/appears to be a/.... precisely.

On 09/17/2016 11:00 PM, grarpamp wrote:

...

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:34 AM, juan wrote:

...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFdZ9t4Y5hQ

Oh please. That's exactly what you'd get from a guy, who believes Allah wills it ...

That Semitic sky god is one sadistic bastard, for sure ;)

Actually, as I understand it, Yahweh is a volcano deity. Hence the quaking mountains and fire from the sky, and general pissed-off attitude. But yeah, an asshole nonetheless.

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 07:03:10PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:24:56AM +0300, Georgi Guninski wrote:

...

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:01:06PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

...

I see the climate changes in my lifetime so it is "fact" for me.

I see no one disputing climate change. Quite the contrary.

Don't follow climate statistics (some may say numerology), but natural climate change should be _very slow_ IMHO and not detectable in a single lifetime at all, except at the border of something big.

I disagree - it's a chaotic system, chaotic as in fractal chaos theory chaotic, meaning that a small change in one spot can cause a big change elsewhere, butterfly effect and all that.

Well, this theory explains EVERYTHING -- from the universe to the quantum stuff. By "small change" you mean small asteroid hits the earth, destroying it, right?

NOAA - the climatic gift that keeps on giving false data, fudged reports and "total computer failures" so that the data can't be verified. I wonder what could possibly drive "scientists" to be so ... political? Money? Pizza? H. Sterling Burnett: Climategate Redux! NOAA Scientists Fudge, Lose Data http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/21/h-sterling-burnett-climat... Razer rant in 3 .. 2 ..