Very bad news

[JohnRoberts]

don't take the bait....

Ian strikes me as a smart man who has been paying attention for decades...

JR

PS: I suspect he may have been trying to discredit my comments. Insulting you or me would be against the rules and he would never do that, right?

 

[Matador]

I gladly take your advice on audio circuit related matters, but climate scientists you are not. It's unfortunately that you prefer to follow the line laid out for you by cranks and special interests.

You really need to spit out the hook!

 

[fazer]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190916114032.htm
In another article,it talks about the Atlantic getting help from the Indian Ocean. Conflict with the first articles hypothesis. That the overturning of the warm and cold water could be addressed by the Indian Ocean.

seems far from the doomsday situation purposed by the guardian article.

 

[living sounds]

You really need to spit out the hook!

Probably. I know I will not convince them.

But the willfull misunderstanding here is kind of sad. "Climate Change" currently primarily means an increase of extreme weather. Have a look at the news. It is happening everywhere.

 

[PermO]

Don't worry, it's just the Sun...

 

[fazer]

This YouTube video clip “mass psychosis”, represents the sum of all fears. As soon as I feel right in my views, I feel the truth in the opposite people’s fears. Seems like a lot of us feel the other side is so wrong but also realize some right in their argument.

Putting all your hopes in science and scientists is a totalitarian problem just like it is with politicians dictators and religion.

Now that said let’s go find and burn some witches. Or not!

 

[JohnRoberts]

Sometimes I feel like life is a tug of war with teams of people trying to manipulate our sentiment and pull us in different directions. Politics just organizes this into two general directions but its all the same game (power from public consent). The good news for me is that after this many decades I am harder to sway, and I can see most manipulation attempts coming a mile away, that doesn't stop them coming.
======
This is your last courtesy call about your expired car warranty (car is 24 YO). Press #2 if you want us to stop calling you... (yeah right). Click on Unsubscribe, from this spam if you want it to stop... (yeah right). In both those cases you have just identified yourself as a live target, for more attacks.

Don't be the patsy...

JR

 

[crazydoc]

For me, climate change is the trapping of energy. That energy's got to go somewhere.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Imagine if the climate didn't change?

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

Probably. I know I will not convince them.

But the willfull misunderstanding here is kind of sad. "Climate Change" currently primarily means an increase of extreme weather. Have a look at the news. It is happening everywhere.

Which I think admirably demonstrates just how little most people understand about climate change.

Cheers

Ian

 

[living sounds]

Putting all your hopes in science and scientists is a totalitarian problem just like it is with politicians dictators and religion.

Sounds like a straw man. The scientific method ist just a tool to gain a better understanding of reality. We still need (and get) to decide what to do.

 

[living sounds]

Which I think admirably demonstrates just how little most people understand about climate change.

Cheers

Ian

The experts do. So why put yourself at odds with them? You don't do it in other areas of science, where your ideology is not threatened, after all...

 

[PermO]

Imagine if the climate didn't change?

JR

We would still be on a boiling rock...

 

[PermO]

Oh, and truth is not an ideology...

 

[Tubetec]

You would think that over the last 18 months with the big reduction in road traffic and curtailement of air travel during the various levels of lockdown it would have provided great insights into how air quality effects the weather and our health .

Weather aside , the wider environmental impact of what were doing needs to be addressed , I think we as electronics people are in a good position to be able to see the wastage of resources thats been allowed to happen.

Look at Monsanto's gain of function experiments over the plant kingdom , they have hijacked the seed banks held and handed down over generations in the spirit of public good , by proxy attack . Polenators , Monsanto doesnt need them but there key to a healthy environment . Just because medling with plant DNA doesnt have any associated welfare or ethical issues initially doesnt mean it wont cause other ill effects up or down the food chain .

I agree the climate change argument acts as a big diversionary and divisionary talking point , meanwhile some very bad science creeps through unoticed .Our actions on this planet do have massive repercussions environmentally , I dont think theres anyone in this room that will try and argue with that . The problem with argueing against climate change is its often taken as an argument for us to continue sucking diesel at full throttle until the resources of the earth can no longer sustain us , then we squable and go to war about whats left over until its all over . Who ever thought about plastic particulates accumulating along with toxins in marine creatures , we never think of the possible down stream impacts of our latest and greatest idea until it comes back and bites us in the arse , and its the same patern over and over and over again.

 

[ruffrecords]

The experts do. So why put yourself at odds with them? You don't do it in other areas of science, where your ideology is not threatened, after all...

You just don't listen do you. It is nothing to do with ideology, it is to do with facts, There are plenty of experts who disagree with the accepted view and no, they are not all in the pay of the fossil fuel experts. And remember, science is not about consensus it is about verifiable facts. The real issue with climate change is there are many other factors that influence it significantly but they never get a mention in the "we're in the shit and it's our fault" dogma. Get yourself a Geology primer and learn about these factors that have caused much more significant climate changes than anything the pundits currently predict. Then get hold of the book by the climate scientist from the University of East Anglia (the UK's primary climate the centre) and read his detailed analysis if the last 1000 years of weather and then read his caution for anyone trying to predict climate change over the nest 50 to 100 years.

Edit: Here is a little bedtime reading for you: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114shrg21644/pdf/CHRG-114shrg21644.pdf

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

The experts do. So why put yourself at odds with them? You don't do it in other areas of science, where your ideology is not threatened, after all...

Science is not about popularity, one conflicting data set can disprove a scientific theory.

JR

 

[rob_gould]

You just don't listen do you. It is nothing to do with ideology, it is to do with facts, There are plenty of experts who disagree with the accepted view and no, they are not all in the pay of the fossil fuel experts. And remember, science is not about consensus it is about verifiable facts. The real issue with climate change is there are many other factors that influence it significantly but they never get a mention in the "we're in the shit and it's our fault" dogma. Get yourself a Geology primer and learn about these factors that have caused much more significant climate changes than anything the pundits currently predict. Then get hold of the book by the climate scientist from the University of East Anglia (the UK's primary climate the centre) and read his detailed analysis if the last 1000 years of weather and then read his caution for anyone trying to predict climate change over the nest 50 to 100 years.

Edit: Here is a little bedtime reading for you: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114shrg21644/pdf/CHRG-114shrg21644.pdf

Cheers

Ian

Did you mean to link a hearing organised by Ted Cruz?! I thought you were going to provide a link to the work by the climate scientist you mentioned.

I read his (Cruz) opening statement. The assertion about 18 years of satellite data sounded iffy to me. I had a quick hunt. Here's a rebuttal.

https://skepticalscience.com/Response-Data-or-Dogma-hearing.html
What's the name of the book from the east anglia climate scientist?

 

[Matador]

The experts do. So why put yourself at odds with them? You don't do it in other areas of science, where your ideology is not threatened, after all...

 

[JohnRoberts]

Warning I will surely be repeating myself, a problem with old arguments kept alive for political purposes.

I've shared before how this is a classic slow thinking/fast thinking switchero. The earth's temperature is rising, that is an objective fact, the if/then response that the government's power grab is therefore justified is not true. (I am too lazy to look up which logical fallacy this is.)

Finally and I know I am repeating myself here, let's discuss an appropriate response. Even the climate change advocates admit that cutting fossil fuel use to zero would not make a significant change for centuries (think about that).

This is a classic lets all do something that feels like we are helping the planet (group hug anyone?). Paint the climate scientists asking thoughtful questions "climate deniers" to cancel them, and take them out of the debate.

Don't let the political pukes manipulate you that easily.

JR