The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

The man made global warming institution is pretty much like "we proved our point by falsifying a ton of data, it's settled science and not open for debate, now pay up".
Then it totally escapes them as to why the vast majority of people have a problem with this.

[freebeard]

I urge you all to watch the video series I just posted.

Well — I felt obligated, so I did. But I watched at 2x so I also had time for 2. Climate Change -- the objections. The one you posted was focused on 'carbon gases' and I kept thinking 'Space Weather'. Number 2 addresses that. Number 3 purports to separate fact from fiction — but I don't care [sufficiently] about that.

You [NeilBlanchard] have staked out a lonely position, apparently. I'm sympathetic to your lack of support. My own position is that there is a non-zero chance we're all wrong about everything. To me, the reasonable position is to ruggedize infrastructure to survive extremes in any direction. On any axis. At any time. Mil spec stuff. Secret Space Program stuff.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The man made global warming institution is pretty much like "we proved our point by falsifying a ton of data, it's settled science and not open for debate, now pay up".
Then it totally escapes them as to why the vast majority of people have a problem with this.

I'll play devil's advocate here, as I do with everything. It's possible to have an agenda that is motivated by funding, to falsify data, to intentionally be deceitful, and yet still be generally correct in the warning, despite being incorrect in the details.

You correctly point out the biggest problem with the AGW religion; that it seeks to impose their values on unwilling people. As with all religions, the right to practice it ends at the point that it becomes a crusade.

Originally Posted by freebeard

You [NeilBlanchard] have staked out a lonely position, apparently. I'm sympathetic to your lack of support. My own position is that there is a non-zero chance we're all wrong about everything. To me, the reasonable position is to ruggedize infrastructure to survive extremes in any direction. On any axis. At any time. Mil spec stuff. Secret Space Program stuff.

I wouldn't say Neil's position is lonely, and I'm quite surprised to have found climate skeptics on this forum that share similar views as mine. I can sympathize with his position because it's frustrating when you believe there is sufficient evidence that all reasonable people should agree with your position, and yet they don't. I don't doubt that most people who are AGW alarmists are motivated by the good intention to steer humanity away from catastrophe. It's human nature to seek a worthy cause and to form tribes of like-minded people.

It's not useful to point out a problem and offer no solution though. Simply reducing carbon output merely slows the rate at which warming occurs. The benefits of slowing warming have to be weighed with the cost to implement the measures. It's quite possible that effort to reduce human suffering is better spent in fighting direct ways people are harmed (reducing war, starvation, disease, violence, exploitation).

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

In my view, Epstein's most profound comment is the insane view some hold that the less human ingenuity in a product, the better it is for humanity.

is or negates?

A view counter to what R. B. Fuller said about 'metaphysically engendered materials' (DuckDuckGo can't find the quote). He was all about comprehending and apprehending the natural principles that are masked by the Cartesian coordinate system, to make Humankind a success in Universe.

It's quite possible that effort to reduce human suffering is better spent in fighting direct ways people are harmed (reducing war, starvation, disease, violence, exploitation).

"To fight it is to feed it" — the 1960s
"I just invent, then wait until man comes around to needing what I've invented." — R. Buckminster Fuller

[oil pan 4]

There is possibility they are correct that man is the driving force behind climate change, but the institutions have had to falsify data in order to make it look like man is the driving force behind climate change. So we are probably not and now almost no one believe them if we were.

The closest thing to a solution that has been offered is redistribution of wealth and artificial cost push inflation applying to the United states only (as far as major fossil fuel consumers go US, china, India russia).
The solution sounds more like an agenda on account of it costing so much to the point of harming the economy and doing virtually nothing to fix the problem at hand.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

RAW data: information from single original source(s) without adjustments fact checking.

COOKED data: information from adjustments fact checked sources and aggregationors.

I'm Okay with that, but maybe you meant something else?

[DSMHondaGuy]

"But those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -C.S. Lewis

Freedom is allowing people to make the wrong choice. By trying to manipulate the information and "cook" the science, they attempt to steal that from the people and force us to follow what they have decided is best for us. Not to mention the $$$ in the green movement and government funding, billions of dollars tend to sway peoples opinions as they tend to like to stay employed.
Maybe they're right, but they hurt there own cause by doing so.

Also, should we hurt ourselves economically while China gives no damn at all? They have turned lush forests into deserts, but hey lets slit our own throats to go for that most green and expensive manufacturing process while they couldn't give a **** less. Taking pollution controls to a reasonable limit is fine, pushing for the most clean emissions technically possible is stupid as it drives up manufacturing costs to the point you simply can't compete.

Also what is this talk about wealth redistribution Oil Pan?

[Lemmy]

I'm not really interested in climate change. What does bother me is the strategic and economic problems that reliance on foreign energy sources brings, and that for me is a good enough reason to be looking at energy expenditure and renewable sources.

[DSMHondaGuy]

I like the way you think Lemmy.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by DSMHondaGuy

Freedom is allowing people to make the wrong choice.

That's exactly the meaning of my facetious signature; "Give me absolute safety or give me death!". A play on "Give me liberty or give me death".

Collectively we deserve the outcome that we created or allowed to exist. For instance, US citizens deserve the outcome of electing Donald Trump as president, both the good and bad.

I'm okay mostly letting market forces lead alternative energy and transitioning to new technology without coercion. What I'm not okay with is setting arbitrary limits of CO2 for arbitrary areas of industry for unquantified levels of "good" for the environment. If something is going to cost more either in time/money/economy, the justification must be shown to be of greater benefit in a quantifiable way. When it comes to CO2 emissions, it has got to be a nearly 100% collaborative effort from the world, or it's doomed to benefit those who cheat, and harm that do not.