The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

Ok, Patreon it's also on political correctness. But J.Peterson used to accept money from it. About this educational project, I need to search more.

Patreon can be good, if someone have a good idea and require help to go ahead, like for example a project a a eco diea, a eco vehicle. But many people abuse, and one way to find easy money is by saying what people want to hear, being a voice for angry peopkle or wronged.

Originally Posted by freebeard

"...the whole world smells like poop. (baby poop, the worst kind)"

John Prine

That was almost an hour of videos on Patreon and the Left/Right dichotomy. Are you going to go back and watch them?

[redpoint5]

So the only specific criticism so far is that he is relatively wealthy and accepts money that people offer him, almost entirely unsolicited.

There was a non-specific complaint about some topic to do with makeup.

I'm not one for criticising people, but instead ideas. Still waiting to hear what specific ideas I should be scared of that Peterson promotes.

In my view, we should be wary of are those that intend malice. People who are anxious to categorize someone as a Nazi, and use that as justification for violence.

[All Darc]

You are asking me to label hin over a specific thing. I can't do it in the way you want, since he is grease, he is careful, never said someting direct. This makes things more scary somehow, since it's hard to catch, to spot, despite his lectures inderect induces things quite strong. And people are taking hin as a hero...
This indirect approach make suspect people became his fans, like some "pseudo nazis" and people with sexism (true ones and not the left crazy delusion) and prejudice. And we always end-up with this : "Tell me where he said it ?"

Psychologists always try to rationalize a way to fit psychology into their personal believes. This field for me it's a joke.
He is conservative, or at least appears, and use to avoid make critics to conservative bad sides (liberals have bad side too). He is very good to rationalizae and fit it in a way to appear complete rational, but like I said it's over one side of the coin only.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So the only specific criticism so far is that he is relatively wealthy and accepts money that people offer him, almost entirely unsolicited.

There was a non-specific complaint about some topic to do with makeup.

I'm not one for criticising people, but instead ideas. Still waiting to hear what specific ideas I should be scared of that Peterson promotes.

In my view, we should be wary of are those that intend malice. People who are anxious to categorize someone as a Nazi, and use that as justification for violence.

[redpoint5]

I've not heard Peterson referred to as a hero, but then again I don't hang out with Peterson fans.

I can accept that there is something you aren't able to articulate that makes you uncomfortable, but if you can't articulate it, then we can't have a meaningful conversation about it. So far as I can tell, his main agenda is for people to accept as much responsibility for themselves as they can, and I don't see anything dangerous with that. Not sure why "be responsible and tell the truth" is something I should be wary of.

Who can control what certain members of certain groups like you? That's a low tactic to attempt to slander by implying association with people that like him. I've been liked by murderers, rapists, drunk drivers, identity thieves, and drug dealers. That doesn't mean I endorse any of those things in any way.

Your complaints are exactly those that appear on Op Eds of Peterson, which is why I have repeatedly asked if you have actually listened or read his work, or if you are merely consuming opinions from other sources.

[All Darc]

Someone should study the IQ of these people :

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

[freebeard]

Alex the Flat Earth Man is no dummy. He's no doubt paid to close out the Earthers conference. I think Jordan B. Peterson gives more value to society.

It looks like the conference is for people looking for something to believe in. But what about the fundamentals of the psy-op. They ignore pesky details like the Lagrange Points and the Coriolis Effect and build up this narrative. Then they start with the historical revisionism. Martin Liedtke (FLAT EARTH BRITISH) But it's completely different than the historical revisionism from, for instance, New Earth. The Earth 'being flat' is just background for this new tangent.

What I'm taking away is that there were 150 years from Ben Franklin's kite to the beginnings of Big AC, a rival of Big Oil. Years populated by spires with strange antennae on them.

[All Darc]

I wonder how far stupidity can go on 21 century.
Flat Earth started as a kiding play, for fun, someone had the nidea about how far sophistry could go, and started a crazy way to argue against Earth be spheric. I heard about they even told in the end that it was just a lie, a game for fun, but at this point the believers didn't accepted that were fooled and kept believing on it. Is that right?

What if someone start some new stupidity for fun, evem more stupid, spread the idea, just to see how many retards would get into ?
What could be even more stupid and grabe more people?

Why psychiatry don't classify these people as mentally ill?

How far wiil go the "political correctness? Will a teacher of astronomy be fired if he says Flat Earth it's something for imbeciles ? Would he be accused of ofense against someone's belief similar to a offense against a religion?

Most religious people believe Earth it's just 5000 years old. Another stupidity...

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Come on. You are now dug in. One chicken on one day is not going to keep me alive for a whole year.

That's a structural impossibility after my college flirtation with Zen Buddhism.
I'm not attached to 'good news' statistics about renewable energy,nor do I have any expectations about them.Considering zero carbon generation capability,it's a glimpse at exactly what climatologists advocate.
Born at a time when there existed no commercial,electric wind generation,and Bell Lab's photovoltaic cell was yet,three years away,and having lived almost solely off solar and wind for a decade,you might understand my astonishment when I hear of a major industrial nation receiving such a large fraction of their load from renewable.
It may not be perfection,but as a nascent technology,which faces extreme resistance by entrenched economic interests/lobby's/politicians/presidents,I'll enjoy any good news.
This number game,quasi-religious devotion to propagating and perpetuating the dogma of carbonphilia,insinuating against any who dare dissent,isn't helping the situation.
The market is being driven away from this Gospel of Filth.Parts are already marked for extinction.They simply cannot openly compete in a global market.Permits are being cancelled.Finance analysts are recommending for divestment.
This 'load' you refer to is exists at the pleasure of the people.If enough voices are raised,that load is doomed and all the livelihoods that go with it.
We'll find training and other employment for the displaced.Like we did for whalers and livery stable owners.
When the time comes,and we have excess capacity,we may again entertain the idea of boutique,bourgeoisie,mindless consumption.
Haute Couture,or hot planet,take your pick.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm trying to bait someone into providing evidence that prior IPCC reports have given good enough prediction of events that transpired that we can have increased faith that current/future reports are likely to be accurate.

My point is that every cause proclaims itself as being most important, and those most involved have a greater bias to see things the way they want/expect to see them. I'm not too sceptical of the scientific methods used to gather data, but I am sceptical of the interpretation of the data with regards to framing the problem in the most appropriate sense of scale.

The apocalypse is inevitable, but there are various faiths about how that will come about. Some believe it will be due to the outdoor thermostat being messed with too much. This seems highly unlikely to me considering the more direct ways in which humans harm others, and in light of humanity prospering in nearly every measurable way over time.

I don't find objecting to subjectivity to be entirely pointless. If my car is scientifically measured to be going 90 miles per hour, there is little point in arguing the objectivity of that reading. On the other hand, if someone says I'll surely die because that is too fast, then I object to the subjective interpretation of the objective data.

The IPCC reports are structurally deficient.
They don't contain 'current' data.All of them.
Some of the data necessary for the climate models won't even be available until 2041.
The Republican and Democratic parties have actively limited research budgets and banned the purchase of foreign supercomputers when no domestic products existed.These could have helped to bring formerly classified archival database information into the public domain,for inclusion in modelling for the IPCC research.
Since all IPCC reports are based upon statistical probability,they tend to concentrate their language on the higher probabilities,while downplaying the darker projections.
The IPCC does not include data on 'amplification' observations,witnessed in the field.
All global ice sheet and glacier melting is off the charts compared to model predictions.And the IPCC says nothing about it,other than caveats mentioning 'surprises.'
As well,the IPCC has no authority to set policy of any kind.All they can do is make recommendations based on incomplete data.
So far,Earth isn't important enough to waste human and financial resources on.
Scientists,who might be part of a 'solution', have to go begging,door-to-door,for grant money spent on fashion and leisure.
It's way -----d up.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Well actually, the fact that you, and many other people, are misunderstanding is that electricity is only 20% of total energy consumption in most developed countries that use heat in the winter. Like Germany. So on that day that they made 75% of their ELECTRICITY from wind and solar, they used 85% of their ENERGY from something else. That is the important thing that I keep trying to get across. The media, governments, and the general public, are rampant in their misuse of the term "renewable energy". When they should mean to say renewable electricity. Which is only 20% of energy. All of which needs to eventually get converted and replaced.

This is specifically why I came back to get a clarification of whether we were talking about electrical consumption,or 'energy' consumption.
Like I said in another post,I never said anything about anything other than electrical power consumption.
I understand exactly what you're saying.We need to be as precise as we can with wording,so as not to confuse onlookers,which appears,we have a few.