Chicken Little Might Be Wrong?

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
The entire point of my post was to get people here to separate the " "If or Is" question" from the other questions I find all too often that those who reject the "why" and "what to do" parts of this also reject the "If or Is" part - and that is both false and a bad approach to the argument.

If the planetary climate is something that humankind has no control over then why does it matter whether someone agrees with you that the earth is warming or not? A quick google search will provide you reams of information that assert that the earth has been much hotter than it is now & lots cooler than it is now, and that this time , just as other times was a natural event. It seems that you have bought into the lie that this is a dire issue...one that you have within your ability to control, and that is the point I gleaned with from your post, you actually believe the political, ideological, and agenda version, not that that the planet is going through a normal climate iteration....but lets face it if it is a normal, natural phenomena than politicians, & dooms day charlatans cannot capitalize on it.
 

chair

Well-known member
If the planetary climate is something that humankind has no control over then why does it matter whether someone agrees with you that the earth is warming or not? A quick google search will provide you reams of information that assert that the earth has been much hotter than it is now & lots cooler than it is now, and that this time , just as other times was a natural event. It seems that you have bought into the lie that this is a dire issue...one that you have within your ability to control, and that is the point I gleaned with from your post, you actually believe the political, ideological, and agenda version, not that that the planet is going through a normal climate iteration....but lets face it if it is a normal, natural phenomena than politicians, & dooms day charlatans cannot capitalize on it.

I don't buy into anything about this being a dire issue. No matter what you "gleaned". Nor is that relevant. My point is that no one, on any side of this debate (or any other) should deny plain facts. Why?
I think facts are important. And that when debating an issue actual facts count.
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
I don't buy into anything about this being a dire issue. No matter what you "gleaned". Nor is that relevant. My point is that no one, on any side of this debate (or any other) should deny plain facts. Why?
I think facts are important. And that when debating an issue actual facts count.

It certainly is relevant, if you are swayed by an agenda driven through a complete lack of factual data that backs up the assertion, then your post is completely biased to your chosen belief set, and not actual data. The earth has warmed 1.4 degrees F since 1880 according to NASA's data, that is hardly an alarming trend, nor does it warrant the hysteria that it has garnered. The fact that you are questioning whether humankind should "do something about it" is exactly the hubris of this issue that I have been speaking of, you actually believe that humans can change planetary climate...It is an absurd assertion, and I am surprised you cannot, or will not see it as such.
 

Right Divider

Body part
It certainly is relevant, if you are swayed by an agenda driven through a complete lack of factual data that backs up the assertion, then your post is completely biased to your chosen belief set, and not actual data. The earth has warmed 1.4 degrees F since 1880 according to NASA's data, that is hardly an alarming trend, nor does it warrant the hysteria that it has garnered. The fact that you are questioning whether humankind should "do something about it" is exactly the hubris of this issue that I have been speaking of, you actually believe that humans can change planetary climate...It is an absurd assertion, and I am surprised you cannot, or will not see it as such.
Kind of reminds me of the term "playing God".
 

chair

Well-known member
It certainly is relevant, if you are swayed by an agenda driven through a complete lack of factual data that backs up the assertion, then your post is completely biased to your chosen belief set, and not actual data. The earth has warmed 1.4 degrees F since 1880 according to NASA's data, that is hardly an alarming trend, nor does it warrant the hysteria that it has garnered. The fact that you are questioning whether humankind should "do something about it" is exactly the hubris of this issue that I have been speaking of, you actually believe that humans can change planetary climate...It is an absurd assertion, and I am surprised you cannot, or will not see it as such.

This is an example of the identity politics that has corrupted thinking in the US. If I dare say that the earth has in fact been warming (and it has), I am immediately labelled as someone who buys the whole climate change panic view.
 

Right Divider

Body part
This is an example of the identity politics that has corrupted thinking in the US. If I dare say that the earth has in fact been warming (and it has), I am immediately labelled as someone who buys the whole climate change panic view.

Nobody labeled you anything.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
My point is that we can in fact answer #1.


IF we make a lot of assumptions about what is meant by "global" and IFwe pretend our measurements represent a uniform representation of the whole.

I used to do QA/QC work in an FDA regulated production facility making medical devices - we sold over a billion units a year when I was working there. We would take samples at regular intervals during the manufacturing process and test them. Our typical sampling rate was 1 in 700. We had been doing it this way for decades. It was an effective way to test for large scale anomalies and define areas to be scrapped.

When I took on the role of lead investigator for failure, it became apparent very quickly that while our testing protocol was effective in identifying broad scale anomalies, it missed many many short term anomalies, areas of defective product that had been shipped to the customer for decades.

This was a phenomenon that had been missed for decades, in a highly scientific enterprise regulated by very strict government protocols.

I think of those experiences and shake my head when I hear someone state something as mindless as "global temperatures", with the confidence of the ignorant that they know what they're talking about.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
... The earth has warmed 1.4 degrees F since 1880 according to NASA's data ....

the data today is poor, with layers and layers of assumption

imagine what the data looked like in 1880, indeed all the way up to the space age when we started getting satellite/radar estimates of temps.

Now imagine claiming that that data from the sixties, from the seventies, from the eighties, bore any resemblance to the data we get today

which is poor, with layers and layers of assumption
 

Right Divider

Body part
science tells me that 10,000 years ago, my desk with my laptop, here in Northern New York, would be under two miles of ice

so yeah, the earth's been warming

Yep... the climate changed dramatically without man-made emissions.

It's astounding the hubris of those that think they have "proven" that man-made "climate change" is an eminent danger that must also be addressed by man-made actions.

Hubris in the "detection" phase and hubris in the "solution" phase.
 

chair

Well-known member
Nobody labeled you anything.

ROcketman did:
It certainly is relevant, if you are swayed by an agenda driven through a complete lack of factual data that backs up the assertion, then your post is completely biased to your chosen belief set, and not actual data. The earth has warmed 1.4 degrees F since 1880 according to NASA's data, that is hardly an alarming trend, nor does it warrant the hysteria that it has garnered. The fact that you are questioning whether humankind should "do something about it" is exactly the hubris of this issue that I have been speaking of, you actually believe that humans can change planetary climate...It is an absurd assertion, and I am surprised you cannot, or will not see it as such.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
When we talk about the climate, we are talking about the "broad scale".

we had some product lines where we scrapped 80% of the manufactured product because it didn't meet spec - it could be wildly out on the high side or it could predict negative values (an impossibility in the application)

if we didn't know how to identify and remove the bad data/product from our calculations, our predicted values would be meaningless

that is the situation we have wrt "global temperatures"
we don't understand the processes involved in adding heat and removing heat
we don't understand daily variations and think that by averaging them out, we have valid data
and our sampling rate is infinitely smaller than 1 in 700
 
Last edited:

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
Screen-Shot-2019-09-10-at-5.38.34-PM.png

"Ok doser" would be the first to assert that without providing a source, we shouldn't be expected to accept this graph at face value!
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
Google

it's not just for kids anymore

besides, it's right there in the jpeg name

https://mustreadalaska.com/green-new...lots-of-green/
The source of this graph was the Competitive Enterprise Institute which Media Bas/Fact Check characterized as a questionable - source, biased on the far right - promotion of propaganda - use of poor sources - lack of transparency with funding - a long history of lobbying for the tobacco industry - a general rejection of scientific consensus - politically rather scientifically motivated

Media Bias/Fact Check for the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Editorially, the primary purpose of the CEI is to mislead on climate change.
They have been criticized by scientist for publishing misleading information such as this:
Scientist to CEI: You Used My Research To “Confuse and Mislead”. According to Ballotpedia the “CEI believes that scientific consensus on climate change and global warming were politically rather than scientifically motivated.”
Finally, the CEI has a long history of lobbying for the tobacco industry and since 2011 has advocated for the e-cigarette industry.


Overall, we rate the Competitive Enterprise Institute Questionable based on far right bias, promotion of propaganda, use of poor sources, lack of transparency with funding, and a general rejection of scientific consensus. (D. Van Zandt 7/12/2016) Updated (9/21/2019)


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/compe...ise-institute/
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
The source of this graph was the Competitive Enterprise Institute which Media Bas/Fact Check characterized as a questionable - source, biased on the far right - promotion of propaganda - use of poor sources - lack of transparency with funding - a long history of lobbying for the tobacco industry - a general rejection of scientific consensus - politically rather scientifically motivated

Media Bias/Fact Check for the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Editorially, the primary purpose of the CEI is to mislead on climate change.
They have been criticized by scientist for publishing misleading information such as this:
Scientist to CEI: You Used My Research To “Confuse and Mislead”. According to Ballotpedia the “CEI believes that scientific consensus on climate change and global warming were politically rather than scientifically motivated.”
Finally, the CEI has a long history of lobbying for the tobacco industry and since 2011 has advocated for the e-cigarette industry.


Overall, we rate the Competitive Enterprise Institute Questionable based on far right bias, promotion of propaganda, use of poor sources, lack of transparency with funding, and a general rejection of scientific consensus. (D. Van Zandt 7/12/2016) Updated (9/21/2019)


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/compe...ise-institute/

of course, the lazy way out is to attack the messenger instead of the message

:sigh:
 

chair

Well-known member
we had some product lines where we scrapped 80% of the manufactured product because it didn't meet spec - it could be wildly out on the high side or it could predict negative values (an impossibility in the application)

if we didn't know how to identify and remove the bad data/product from our calculations, our predicted values would be meaningless

that is the situation we have wrt "global temperatures"
we don't understand the processes involved in adding heat and removing heat
Why is this relevant to the actual measurements?
we don't understand daily variations and think that by averaging them out, we have valid data
Do you know this for a fact? Can you point to specific errors they made in treating the data? Or are you saying "they could have made some big errors"
and our sampling rate is infinitely smaller than 1 in 700
I'm not sure what is holy about the 1/700 sampling rate, or what constitutes a good sampling rate for global temperatures.
You honestly think that nobody has taken a hard look at the data?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2876/...dence-in-nasas-measure-of-earths-temperature/

Chair
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Green Energy, in other words, what AOC, Al Gore, the entire Democrat party, etc... pushes on a daily basis has nothing to do with "saving the planet". This comes straight from the "greenies" themselves. Now we'll see how indoctrinated the posters here are. If they deny it Bezemecov was right on the money when he said the left is so brainwashed that he could take them to the USSR and they would refuse to believe the truth when he showed it to them.

[h=1]Progressive Eco-Group Admits It: Renewable Energy is a Hoax that Benefits its Greenie Elmer Gantries like Al Gore[/h]
By John Eidson
Independent physicist John Droz, Jr. alerted me to the website of Deep Green Resistance (DGR), an international environmental organization that calls for the total destruction of what it refers to as the “global industrial economy,” a.k.a. capitalism. Given the group’s hard-left credentials, its call for dismantling capitalism throughout the world is not surprising.
What is surprising is that in an unusual show of progressive candor, Deep Green Resistance openly acknowledges what skeptical scientists have been saying for more than two decades: that renewable energy is a government-backed hoax that enriches big corporations -- and green energy investors like Al Gore -- at the expense of taxpayers and the environment. If you find that admission hard to believe, please keep reading. The questions and answers below are verbatim from the FAQ page on the organization’s website.
Will green technology save the planet?
No. Wind turbines, solar PV panels, and the grid itself are all manufactured using cheap energy from fossil fuels. When fossil fuel costs begin to rise such highly manufactured items will simply cease to be feasible.
Solar panels and wind turbines aren’t made out of nothing. They are made out of metals, plastics, and chemicals. These products have been mined out of the ground, transported, processed, manufactured. Each stage leaves behind a trail of devastation: habitat destruction, water contamination, colonization, toxic waste, slave labor, greenhouse gas emissions, wars, and corporate profits.
The basic ingredients for renewables are the same materials that are ubiquitous in industrial products, like cement and aluminum. No one is going to make cement in any quantity without using the energy of fossil fuels. And aluminum? The mining itself is a destructive and toxic nightmare from which riparian communities will not awaken in anything but geologic time.
From beginning to end, so called “renewable energy” and other “green technologies” lead to the destruction of the planet. These technologies are rooted in the same industrial extraction and production processes that have rampaged across the world for the last 150 years.
We are not concerned with slightly reducing the harm caused by industrial civilization; we are interested in stopping that harm completely. Doing so will require dismantling the global industrial economy, which will render impossible the creation of these technologies.
Will renewable energy save the economy?
Renewable energy technologies rely heavily on government subsidies, taken from taxpayers and given directly to large corporations like General Electric, BP, Samsung, and Mitsubishi. While the scheme pads their bottom lines, it doesn't help the rest of us.
Further, this is the wrong question to ask. The industrial capitalist economy is dispossessing and impoverishing billions of humans and killing the living world. Renewable energy depends on centralized capital and power imbalance. We don't benefit from saving that system.
Instead of advocating for more industrial technology, we need to move to local economies based on community decision-making and what our local landbases can provide sustainably. And we need to stop the global economy on which renewable energy depends.
“Stopping the global economy” means destroying the capitalist system that created here in America the most widespread prosperity the world has ever known. That a progressive eco-group would admit that the true agenda behind the push for renewable energy has nothing to do with “saving the planet” and everything to do with destroying capitalism is quite remarkable. To reinforce its position that renewable energy is a hoax, DGR’s website has a cartoon that shows dollar bills being sucked from a wind turbine directly into the pocket of a fat cat investor in subsidized green energy projects.

Stopping the entire global economy will starve hundred of millions, if not billions of people to death, for there will be nobody left but the super rich and the rest of will be peons with no jobs and no way to support ourselves, feed ourselves. The large cities would become ghost towns as there is no way anyone can feed themselves in concrete jungle, and the population would be killing each other as well as starving to death with no way to leave because there would be no gas, no electricity, nothing.

This is the true agenda of marxist elite.

The article can be found here.
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
of course, the lazy way out is to attack the messenger instead of the message

:sigh:
"Ok doser," in his infinite wisdom, is responsible for selecting a source that has been characterized by Media Bias/Fact Check as:

- questionable

- biased on the far right

- promotes propaganda

- use of poor sources

- lack of transparency with funding

- a long history of lobbying for the tobacco industry

- a general rejection of scientific consensus

- politically rather scientifically motivated

Now "ok doser" is trying to shift the blame to "this messenger" when the credibility of his source doesn't stand up to scrutiny!
 
Last edited:
Top