View Single Post
Old 12-24-2018, 03:08 AM   #4276 (permalink)
RedDevil
In the fasting lane
 
RedDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Posts: 3,964

Red Devil - '11 Honda Insight Elegance
Team Honda
90 day: 52.11 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,688
Thanked 2,203 Times in 1,427 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
So we can't believe IPCC then, since they have a biased opinion.

It sounds like if someone agrees with the held belief, then it's unbiased and credible, and if they disagree with the held belief, then they are biased and uncredible.

Research that results in data saying everything is fine gets no funding. Proclaiming apocalypse gets all the funding and results in a belief system.

Some research claims that global warming has been a net benefit at least until now, and possibly until 2080. Certainly it's been a net benefit since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, and since the little ice age 500 years ago.

Even mentioning this is heresy in the AGW religion.

It's absolutely pointless to propose a course of action regarding climate change without also considering the benefits of warming. Most people who are fearful of GW have never even Googled "benefits of global warming" because they aren't interested in a narrative that goes against the one they have decided to believe.

Acknowledging the benefits of global warming and also acknowledging the negatives are not mutually exclusive, but people treat them as such. Knowing about one without the other is to only have half the story. 50% is a failing grade.
Whose religion? Those who believe the climate is not affected by our activities are the cult ones.

Researchers get funding, all of them, or they couldn't do their jobs. And dreamers who theorize on their own and build a website to proclaim their fixed views, with a little help from their brother and dad, they don't do proper research.

What I've seen leads me to acknowledge that we do change the climate. But if I find evidence against it, that will definitely change my position.
The problem is the quality of the data. Someone makes a fancy video or plonks down a website, puts down some outrageous claims, that's no evidence.
Research needs to be verifiable - and verified - to prove or disprove it. If that can't be done it is a theory at best.

I'm a believer - in certain scientific theories that seem plausible or downright correct to me. I do not 'believe' in man made climate change; that has been proven beyond doubt.
__________________
2011 Honda Insight + HID, LEDs, tiny PV panel, extra brake pad return springs, neutral wheel alignment, 44/42 PSI (air), PHEV light (inop), tightened wheel nut.
lifetime FE over 0.17 Gmeter or 0.1 Mmile.



Investors woes:
"In hindsight, I should have placed a bet on the horse that won the race"
"In hindsight, I should have bet more on that horse"
 
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RedDevil For This Useful Post:
aerohead (12-26-2018), NeilBlanchard (12-27-2018)