The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

I never took any kind of art class beyond elementary school on account of it being retarded.
My time at Langley with my nasa friends confirmed it. They all said man made climate change is BS and were doing it for the funding to save their jobs/retirement.
That's all I needed to know.
In college if I would have submitted a project where I observed a single system for a little while, did nothing else then drew wild conclusions based on nothing else, didn't show anything about how those conclusions were reached I would have failed.
For example if I made a computer model and showed the result that is to be expected then didn't allow the instructor to see the program, instant fail. That means my computer model is BS and only makes a predetermined result.
Or I stole some one else's work.
It would seem mad driven climate change science is the only field where this extremely sketchy brand of science is allowed.
Only in a cult like environment does this pass the sniff test.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

And here lies the problem.



How dare mere mortal men question Michael Manns work.

His work and hockey stick graph was the “GENESIS” moment of the global warming movement.

And just like any religion or cult, mere mortals are not allowed to question their doctrine and or founders.

They preach “Doom and Gloom” if one does not get behind their cause.

They require their followers to be unwavering fanatical participants.

They require that their followers not be lead astray by differing opinions.

They require that their followers attack and strike down all naysayers.



Case in point.




Questioning and requiring proof of a scientific theory is “aiding and abetting the enemy “ ???

Really...???

Maybe a refresher coarse on how the scientific process works is required...

https://images.app.goo.gl/FFA7cnhAk6cqU4zf7

Note the process is circular, not linear.

In the cartoon to the right of the process...

Step Two is where the AGW crowd inserted Michael Mann and the hockey stick graph...






>

*looks like the genesis reaches back to around 1827,before the commie-pinko-*** climatologists existed.
*questions and skepticism are a integral part of science,however fossil-fuel industry financed skeptic,contrarian,denier pseudo-science hasn't contributed to global warming mitigation.All arguments from the 'scientific' deniers have been debunked and have no scientific merit.
*I've read actual testimony by scientists,from US Senate hearings,and the evidence is that they report information and attempt to connect dots for the committee members,whom have only a general education,and no command of specific details.If that's preaching,then I guess all doctors are preachers when after your lab work,they tell you that you've got high blood pressure,you're overweight,and if you don't do something about it,you're likely to develop type-2 diabetes,stroke,and heart attack.They use thermometers,pressure meters,and weight scales,and laboratory equipment also.Probably all socialist liars.Just in the medical profession to get rich,and redistribute wealth into their greedy-a-- pockets.
*James Hansen was completely wrong about the Venusian atmosphere.As soon as he found it out,he just abandoned his old beliefs and moved on with the new,better information.That would be an example of wavering.Wallace Broecker admitted his mistake about the North Atlantic conveyor being responsible for climate change.He apologised and moved on.These are some of the biggest names in climate science.I don't know what you're talking about.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

This is why open sources are superior.

That escalated quickly.

'It's against the law to lie to the government.'Black's Law Dictionary (Perjury)
These people have lied under oath to the US Government and by default are criminals.
Their actions pose a clear and present danger,not only to all Americans,but everyone on the planet.
By not prosecuting them constitutes a failure to protect the US Constitution.
They are,by default,enemies of the state.
And language as used by oil pan 4 can be interpreted as 'criminal solicitation'.
When the fossil-fuel industry reimburses the American public for the billions of dollars they've spent on climate science since 1945,only then would they have a say in access to raw research.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Our President said to Obama of his first term "it will be like you were never here." If he gets a second term it may be like China was never there.

Is it Okay to think we may not be doing enough? Given the Milankovich cycle and all?

Past performance does not guarantee future results.
____________

..and we now know that...melting more quickly changes the polar albedo. Is that cool or what?

Other than the 11-year sunspot cycle,the next periodic solar cycle is 1,500-years.
The 22,000-year precession of the equinox would be next.
The first Milankovitch cycle is 23,000-years out,then 41,000 year cycle,and finally the 98,000 year cycle.
It will be awhile before these orbital-forcings make a showing.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Nazi made a huge intentionqal distortion. They found jews skilled and capable, and for them jews was taking german goods, money, jobs. So they found jews stronger and decided attack, starting label jews as weak, as a inferior race.

I think Nietzsche refer as strong the capables of find reason, and define as weak the incapability to be rational and coherent. Not the kind of darwinian sellection of the strong. And Darwin wasn't creating a phylosophy, but just describing the nature, the nature's characteristics hinself found cruel, not desirable for civilization and humanism.

The elimination of weakers, in nazi diabolic phylosophy, was more connect to their own people, since they murdered a lot of cronic ill or mental disable german kids, and sterelized many germans with depression and other psychiatric problems or german people with genetic disorders.

Of course Nazi distorted the Nietzsche philosophy, but they would have said they expanded it. They were motivated by "good" just like everyone else. That's exactly the problem when god is dead and we're "Beyond Good and Evil". Eliminating the weak was defined as "good" by the Nazis. In their view, strength and weakness mostly had to do with physical prowess, though mental capability was still valued somewhat below that. I don't exactly know how jews made the "weak" list. I'm not an expert in history or philosophy... something I need to study more.

Nietzsche absolutely drew on Darwinian theory to formulate his philosophy; which was roughly the advancement of the fit, and the elimination of the unfit. While he wouldn't have called for the murder of weaker people, he had a low opinion of them and would rather not see them procreate into the future.

Nietzsche didn't place a lot of value on reason, rather he placed value on those things that advance the desires of the individual, regardless of the "truth" of it. If there is no right and wrong, then what is good is merely the thing that fulfills desire.

Originally Posted by aerohead

I'm probably two-weeks out from completing Zombie Economics.I'll wait until then to address the economic issues.However,at half way through the book,since the early 1970's economists have been batting zero.And Laissez faire has been a complete failure.Capitalism appears to be the most inefficient and expensive form of an economic model.$4-trillion in losses in 2008 alone.
All gains from 1945-through 1976 were lost.
I absolutely disagree with your comparison between climate science and economics.There appears to be no factual evidence to support your assessment.I'll know more over the coming two weeks.Appreciate your patience.

We've never seen laissez faire because it's never been tried... but I'm not a Libertarian anyhow, so I think certain regulations are necessary.

There's a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism. We've got a serious problem with politics being a career field, people pledging allegiance ans surrendering their mind to 1 of 2 political tribes, and both parties both exhibiting the same corrupt tendencies to cater to special interests and boost the reach of the federal government, and especially the executive branch. That's a failure of the people, not of capitalism.

Here's US GDP per capita, and it shows a strong upward trend, so I don't know what loss you're referring to.



Here's world GDP per capita. Notice that hockey stick.



Capitalism is the worst and most inefficient system of allocating talent and resources, except for all the other systems tried. I've yet to hear a proposal for a different system that would be more efficient.

Originally Posted by aerohead

With an Associates Arts degree,how is it that you can make a distinction between the two? Did you sneek in a dozen multi-disciplinary climate Ph.D.s and 40-years of field research,if not a minimum of 10,000 hours,in each of these dozens of disciplines?
Throw us a bone.
If so,then you have the floor.

Did you obtain those credentials yourself? I respect your arguments regardless of your academic certifications. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. While a person holding a certain title may be more likely to have correct understanding of things, it isn't necessarily so.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

"Capitalism relies for its functioning on a logic of infinite growth, fossil fuel combustion, and colonial resource extraction abroad. The drive for infinite economic growth exhausts the world’s finite resources and creates increasing waste and pollutant by-products which necessarily ends up crossing planetary boundaries and undermining the world’s biosphere. The capitalist economy’s growth imperative relies on the high efficiency of polluting fossil fuels to sustain itself, manifested in the stark rise in carbon emissions and global warming since the industrial revolution. The capitalist economy is historically built on colonial resource extraction abroad and has only survived by these same means. Still today, the fuels and resources for the Global North are obtained by means of gross human rights violations, exploitative work conditions, and localised ecological degradation in the Global South. It is this system of infinite growth that is currently driving the planet to climate breakdown and ecological Armageddon.

However, without this increasing growth, the economy falters and even collapses in recession, putting shops out of business, pushing communities into unemployment, and creating grim economic hardship and social fallout. This creates an impossible dilemma for those running society’s political institutions – they are unable to keep the economy afloat and tackle climate breakdown at the same time"
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...reen-new-deal/

I've read enough history to believe that we have every tool we need to proceed.It will be different.Individuals will bring their own particular adjectives to describe their experience to the change.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Agreed that continued economic growth is unsustainable and leads to pollution and resource scarcity problems. I see no link to colonialism being responsible for this state of the world though.

My best guess is that technological innovation and continued world improvement in standard of living will result in more rapid decline in population growth, which will eventually go negative at some point. A stabilized population is perhaps the primary key to so-called sustainability.

some say,that the best contraceptive is,the knowledge that one's children will survive to adulthood.Basic heathcare in the developing world is hoped to bring smaller family size and flat population 'curves' at around 9-10-billion.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

This one instantiation of capitalism. Which is corrupted by the central banking system sucking it dry.

A better world is possible.

Half-way through 'Zombie Economics',the author has already shown that structurally,we'd already be toast if it weren't for the Federal Reserve.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

No point in complaining about the current state of affairs without proposing a better alternative. Usually easier to tweak something that's working than to burn it all and start over.

I agree.Only incremental change,over some time transition will work.Unless war is declared,then it's a different dance.

[aerohead]

redneck ,with a very long thread (thank you) asked some capitalist-related questions.Without repeating the thread,I wanted to comment that I believe that there were better questions to ask.
None of the data shared represented a full-accounting of capitalist footprints on the planet and until they do,there's nothing to discuss.