The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

I created a long thread about how I deeply hate digital video compression, artefacts, banding, montion blur (also related to compression deal bad with fast motion) and how LED/LCD TVs and monitors are abominable, with view angle distortion even with 10 degrees, black crushing and white clipping.

I no longer watch TV, since I can't stand in front of a LCD/LED screen with a digital video compression TV chanel with poor bitrate, in full screen. I just can't watch. I do not get entertainment from TV anymore, since these "modern" things make me feel disgust.

Originally Posted by litesong

I should have put "" in my post.
Symphonic orchestras already cured the "videotape glowing bald heads" problem. Lots of those old men have been replaced with women & the young. & new tech replaced videotape.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Nature doesn't always work as the alarmists would like either. Nature is what nature is and believe it or not humans are part of nature. Just like pine beetles destroy their habitat to live, humans may do likewise. Nature will survive, it always has, always will, things just change.

Science on the other hand does say warming will help, science done when scientists were just looking for what might change... that is until the machine found out science was saying warming would help. Now there is a bunch of studies that needed to fix that possibility, because nature does need to behave the way they want.

Two questions: who is an "alarmist"? And what do you think they would "like" nature to act like?

Do pine beetles have science, that tells them they should die off during the winter - even if it isn't cold enough to kill them?

In what way does "science" say that warming will help the climate?

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Some people might fall for the oil narrative... but how prevalent is it? Probably the only people that would cite oil research to back their claims are people with minds already made up about whether we should do anything about reducing oil consumption and CO2 emissions.

People likewise can adopt unobjective narratives on the extreme opposite side of the debate; that CO2 is the #1 problem affecting nearly all aspects of well-being and poses an existential threat. The science community doesn't have a consensus that global warming poses a likely existential threat to humanity.

So you have absurd positions on both ends of a spectrum; those that say humans have no impact on the global environment, and those that attribute every day that is colder or hotter than they'd like to climate change.

BTW-I've never even read an Oil research paper, or know what those claims are, not even 2nd hand from a news outlet, as I have avoided news for about 10 years now... I just found out a plan is in place for humans to visit the moon again in 2024 when I watched a 1 year old Youtube speech by Michio Kaku. I must be doing a good job avoiding the news to have missed that.

Follow the (BIG) money.

Oil companies knew about what their products are doing - at least as far back as the late 1970's. Then they suppressed it - exactly like they did for leaded gas, a bit later on; and exactly like tobacco companies did.

If you can't understand this, then you are being willfully ignorant.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Of course, because scientists have a vested interest in climate change and will subdue anything that contradicts it, nor will their peers correct them. Scientists cannot be trusted!
Unlike the oil industry, which works for the better of all, not for their shareholders...

You have no proof, and not because somebody hid it.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Follow the (BIG) money.

Oil companies knew about what their products are doing - at least as far back as the late 1970's. Then they suppressed it - exactly like they did for leaded gas, a bit later on; and exactly like tobacco companies did.

If you can't understand this, then you are being willfully ignorant.

Where in my statements did you gather that I don't understand competing interests? Of course there are parallels of tobacco and oil research. The tobacco litigation surrounded me when I was an intern at the Dept of Human Services.

Unfortunately fire has to be fought with fire. Those trying to make a case against someone else will say the guilty party is responsible for everything bad that occurs in the world. One could accept that untruth, or launch a counter that tends to be that they are responsible for nothing bad in the world. Somehow those absurd positions fight it out and tend towards something resembling truth in the middle.

I'm not justifying dishonest research by anyone, just saying that it's to be expected. Unfortunately our litigious society has discouraged honesty by crushing anyone that insists on it.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm very hopeful, which is aided by my avoidance of news consumption, especially local news. Local news is garbage.

When I visit my friends upriver, they stop at 5pm to drink alcohol and shout at the TV news. I get to talk during the commercials.

I prefer the news at one remove: Joe Rogan, Tim Pool, Lionel Nation.

[All Darc]

Global Warming and friendship. That can be a problem...

In life we need not much to be happy, just friends. That would be a simple way to save the planet.

But...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAU6HYpvzUU

[freebeard]

Global Warming and friendship. That can be a problem...

They're oblivious to that. It's Trump Derangement Syndrome all the way down.

Last time I was there they had company and I told the the story about teenagers scaring little children with their Marxist propaganda. The other folks were genuinely interested.

[redpoint5]

I understand why people wouldn't like a particular political figure, but how much impact do they really have on individuals?

There is no amount of forensic investigation into my life that would demarcate when Trump took office. He's so far removed from my life to be practically meaningless except for the time occupied by people talking about him.

Anyhow, I used to enjoy watching local news and improv mock it. I really think there's a market for comedy that exaggerates the absurdity of "news". It would be more funny than most SNL skits at least.

[freebeard]

I appreciate Some More News and The Babylon Bee seems to have supplanted The Onion.

I understand why people wouldn't like a particular political figure, but how much impact do they really have on individuals?

It's not even the particular individual, it's the '11 0'clock' news that is crazed and that's driving susceptible individuals cra-cra.

The media is a cat and our President has a laser pointer.

[redpoint5]

While I do appreciate well executed trolling, I'd like to get back to things like "We choose to go to the moon and do the other things in this decade..." instead of trolling.

The federal government could probably stand to get cut fiscally by 50%, which sounds extreme until you realize that just means local government would have more authority and autonomy to solve their problems, and could elect to increase tax revenues by the amount not received in federal money (or any amount they see fit).