The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Just listened to Scott Adams E697. He mentioned that 26% of adult males had no sexual encounter with another person in the last 1 year,

A year? Amateurs.

We must think very similarly since that's what I've been saying here

I'd be careful, his precepts are good (loser-think, etc), but he comes up with some wackadoodle ideas. He was trying to pair Harris and Buttegig (pres vs vice, or vice versa) and he insisted Gabbard wouldn't be considered on his Periscope.

I follow him skeptically.

Here's Dr. Steve Turley on 5 recent revolts against activists like Extinction Rebellion and G. Thunberg. https://youtu.be/YawXLtaTD6Y

[oil pan 4]

If I go a year I better be dead or over the age of 80.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I'd be careful, his precepts are good (loser-think, etc), but he comes up with some wackadoodle ideas. He was trying to pair Harris and Buttegig (pres vs vice, or vice versa) and he insisted Gabbard wouldn't be considered on his Periscope.

I follow him skeptically.

Here's Dr. Steve Turley on 5 recent revolts against activists like Extinction Rebellion and G. Thunberg. https://youtu.be/YawXLtaTD6Y

Agreed. SA shows a lot of bias (which I would guess he'd admit to as well), but he's certainly a bright guy. He also makes a ton of predictions, so when some land, it's easy to point those out. Predicting that free high definition pornography would cause a decline in sex probably isn't much of a stretch.

Since I'm a loaner type (of the outgoing sort), I do pretty well to be critical of people and groups I admire. I don't follow politics, so much of what SA says on those topics sounds like a foreign language to me, though his analysis of tactics is interesting.

His Neitzsche-like philosophy would be in conflict with my Kantian-like philosophy.

[freebeard]

It sounds like he's coming around. Episode 698 (37:00). He gave her an A+ for her attack on H. Clinton, and predicts she'll hit 5% in the polls.

edit:
He admits to not knowing what happened with the Kurds. My understanding is that after we drew down (50-1000 or so), the Kurds kicked Turkish b*tt and cut a deal with the President of Syria. It faded to history in 48 hours.

Since I'm a loaner type (of the outgoing sort)...

I could use a couple grand. It's raining but I guess that's weather instead of climate.

[redpoint5]

Guess I've never tried spelling loner before... but I am a loaner too. I never loan anything I would be angry to not get back unless it's backed by collateral. freebeard is at the top of my list of forum members I'd consider to loan to, mostly because it would be neat to see that Acrimoto cruising around.

[freebeard]

I'm in contact with their #2 guy about front fenders plagarized from the Aston Martin Valkyrie. He's receptive, but doesn't quite get it yet.

Tulsi just nuked Hillary from orbit.

[oil pan 4]

So any one surprised the climate cult doesn't want to talk about how abandoning fossil fuels will make steel as valuable as gold and silver, glass a luxury, aluminum more valuable than silver, concrete so expensive it will be beyond the reach of the average individual and that will some how make our lives better?

[freebeard]

Best use of the unoxidized portion if all the scrap steel would be as armatures for marine electrodepostion.


http://www.impactlab.net/2008/07/18/...utopia-ampere/

Autopia Ampere will begin as a series of wire-mesh armatures anchored atop a sea mountain. Once in place, they will be connected to a supply of low-voltage direct current produced by solar panels. Over time, electrochemical reactions will draw minerals from the sea to the armatures, creating walls of calcium carbonate, which is what us landlubbers commonly call limestone. (See illustration on page 57.) In much the same way that a household sponge absorbs water, the oceans absorb CO2. By removing carbon-containing compounds from the oceans, the mineral accretion process would help reduce the buildup of CO2, which is a greenhouse gas.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I wonder how the logic works that allow someone to claim they accept science - and then call people who look at all the evidence, and are then deeply concerned for the survival of most of life on earth - "cultists"?

An unqualified guess:
*the visual cortex experiences an excitation through a confirmational bias filter
*readiness potentials are triggered by a challenge by a novel,potentially heretical position
*the amygdala secretes adrenocorticotropic hormone and norepinephrine
*which disinhibits the hard-wired switch to the R-complex
*triggering the hypothalmus to stimulate the adrenal gland's production of cortisol into the bloodstream
*initiating fear amplification and fight/conflict response
*compartmentalized
*leading to a mental habit
*of target fixation/ide'e fixe
*and attack response
*ending in chemical dependency (literally addiction) to the norepinephrine/dopamine/testocerone/adrenaline.At the first appearance of an Alexandria Ocasio Cortez,or the like,the person immediately bypasses logic,and goes directly to non-processed behavior.It's a physiological response at this level,and so addictive that the individual can't shake it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by slowmover

“Science” will find the results it is paid to find. Who funds, and who publishes, are the pertinent questions. Adjustments are only a matter of re-phrasing questions to fit an agenda.

What’s “true” hasn’t ever been the province of investigation. Or, observation. Predictability is highly dependent on definitions.

Language constricts choice.

Thus, law.

That’s what’s on the table.

Who owns the legislatures and the courts?

.

I defend your right to your opinion,however I don't subscribe to your thesis.
Peer-review would reveal any misconduct on the part of the investigator.Cold fusion bombed because no other investigator could reproduce the original results of the inventor's claimants.
You'll find now higher degree of specificity than in scientific discourse.
The scientific agenda is to test a hypothesis and see if the results support the claim or not.The very act of the research typically reveals more questions than answers,which lead to further research and refinement.
'Truth' is not the province of science.Their concerned with facts and probabilities.Most all scientific results are a function of the highest levels of statistical analysis.Signals emerging from background noise.
As to language,I would offer that vocabulary limits thought.If you can't conceptualize asymmetricadimethylhydrazine,then it doesn't exist in your universe,while it does exist in the mind of a chemist.
As to 'law',I would say that it's been adulterated by special interests.There's a vast body of bonafides to support that notion.
I'd say that the US Senate is bought and paid for by lobbyists,only because that's what some senators say.