The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Perhaps you haven't followed Scott Adams on 'follow the science'. Even though he's talking about Corona-chan, Persuasion trumps data. We've gone through a few climate reversal predictions since the 1970s.

The Anasazi retreated to cliffside fortifications. Guess the they just didn't understand anthropomorphic climate modification.

He doesn't exists for me. And he isn't going to.
I'll do my own reading.
And I'll do my own thinking.
Make my own conclusions.
Your sources have been an on-going, expensive waste of my time.
It's why I left the Cosmic Catastrophe thread.
If you'd actually followed the scientists you'd have a perfectly good explanation with respect to 'predictions' since 1975. I've posted on it long ago. You spit on my gifts.

[freebeard]

You spit on my gifts.

I think of it as friendly persuasion.

Offering summations so as to not waste your expensive time. Here's a bite-sized chunk:


https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-01-14

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) Perhaps you're unaware that nobody would be able to make heads nor tails of raw data.
2) Perhaps your unaware that only after using the most sophisticated statistical tools available, would a climate scientist, or anyone else have any possible chance at all of discerning any change to global temperatures.
3) Perhaps you're unaware that no scientist has ever seen a 'trace' of doomsday global warming.
4) All they see are 'trends'.
5) It's the implications of what the trends mean to the future which is what's alarming them.
6) The only rational response by those familiar with climate science would be alarm.
7) It is doomsday.
8) The timing is the only unknown, however, as computers get faster, and models improve, they'll be able to better and better, resolve the temporal issue.
9) Maybe New Mexico will be the first to go. The Anasazi are gone.

Only false science censors opposing views.
New mexico is where people go during rapid climate change and world wide disasters, we had the first high rise condos known to man. This part of new mexico is one of 2 locations in the lower 48 continuously inhabited for the last 12,000 year. Not going anywhere anytime soon.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I think of it as friendly persuasion.

Offering summations so as to not waste your expensive time. Here's a bite-sized chunk:


https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-01-14

I want the summation from you, in your own words, so I know you understand the material.
Handing me off to some intermediary is not friendly.
You've stung me too many times with S-O.
I cringe when you post 'sources.'
Stung once, twice shy!

[aerohead]

https://www.hcn.org/articles/climate...cos-rio-grande

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Only false science censors opposing views.
New mexico is where people go during rapid climate change and world wide disasters, we had the first high rise condos known to man. This part of new mexico is one of 2 locations in the lower 48 continuously inhabited for the last 12,000 year. Not going anywhere anytime soon.

If opposing views lack scientific rigor, they self-destruct on their own. They can not survive the rigor of scientific examination. They don't need any help from censors. Self-inflicted wounds.
'False' science is structurally impossible.
Science is 'science' because it's 'scientific.'
Things not scientific would fall under a different rubric.
Pseudo-science is an example.
A 'scientist' using raw data would have to be put into a contextual framework before anything reasonable discussion could proceed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[oil pan 4]

I noticed global warming believers hate taking about the raw data, they avoid it like the plague. Just like anything that doesn't support the narrative.

[freebeard]

I want the summation from you, in your own words, so I know you understand the material.
Handing me off to some intermediary is not friendly.
You've stung me too many times with S-O.
I cringe when you post 'sources.'
Stung once, twice shy!

Were I to do so [and could], would you accept it uncritically? Could you do so without hand-waving about 'mu science'?

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

New mexico is where people go during rapid climate change and world wide disasters

((duckduckgo.com/?q=archelluta+mesa&ia=web))

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I noticed global warming believers hate taking about the raw data, they avoid it like the plague. Just like anything that doesn't support the narrative.

1) Who supplies raw data?
2) What would this raw data be?
3) When would people have access to it?
4) Where would they go to get it?
5) How would they interpret it one way or another?
6) Why would they even consider such folly?
7) Raw data has no narrative.
8) Data is just data, it's not even information yet.
9) It only becomes information after statistical analysis.
10 ) That's probably graduate level statistics.
11) Most Americans don't even know arithmetic.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Were I to do so [and could], would you accept it uncritically? Could you do so without hand-waving about 'mu science'?



((duckduckgo.com/?q=archelluta+mesa&ia=web))

1) I would just experience it to begin with.
2) Based upon what you wrote, we'd go from there.
3) If I thought I possessed something of value that I could contribute to the conversation I'd do that.
4) My mentors recommend non-emotional thinking.
5) That would be my guiding star.

[freebeard]

I want the summation from you, in your own words, so I know you understand the material.

Okey doke. Here's a summation in you own words, with one alteration.

1) Who supplies raw data?
2) What would this raw data be?
3) When would people have access to it?
4) Where would they go to get it?
5) How would they interpret it one way or another?
6) Why would they even consider such folly?
7) Raw data has no narrative.
8) Data is just data, it's not even information yet.
9) It only becomes information after statistical analysis.
10 ) That's probably graduate level [economics].
11) Most Americans don't even know [economics].