[Prof_Chomsky]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Oh look, insults from a weather expert.

Knowing enough to trust the entire global scientific community, across many countries & cultures, makes me average at best.

But, thinking you are personally more intelligent than that entire body of experts with IQ's many multiples that of your own, that have spent their entire life studying the science... well that's either idiocy, or arrogance.

[Freakinoldguy]

The real reason for climate skepticism is that alot of people are tired of being fed a steady diet of "were all gonna die if we don't (fill in the blank), none of which ever came to pass.

So, is it any wonder that people don't believe this latest round of "we're all gonna die" rhetoric that seems to do nothing but enrich a specific group of well off people and allow politicians to enact even more draconian socialist laws.

The enviromentalists have been crying wolf for so long now that people have tuned them out and yet, they haven't clued in that if they keep using the same "we're all going to die" refrain eventually no one will listen to them.

If they want to get people to listen to them they have to have meaningful dialogue that doesn't oppose critical thinking but embraces it. They have to stop attacking everyone who doesn't agree with them. They have to stop bowing at the alter of the leaders of the environmental movement and realise that they're just people who can and do make mistakes. They have to realise kids go to school to learn not be indoctrinated. They have to stop thinking of themselves as elite and everyone who disagrees with them as an ignorant loser bent on personally destroying the world. And maybe most of all, they have to stop using the end justifies the means method of intimidating or tricking people into following their beliefs.

Do that and people will at least listen. Otherwise they'll continue to alienate the people they've already pissed off with their antics and false claims.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hey, Doc, you're the one who started this recent round of conflating hot weather and climate.

Remember your comment about Australia?

$1:

And no end to the hot dry weather in sight.

And when I responded to your comment about weather with the fact that the weather in Sydney was cooler and raining...

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You really need to check the local weather before posting such things.

https://www.google.com/search?q=austral ... e&ie=UTF-8

Thunderstorms and rain in Sydney right now.

The ten day forecast is mild summer temps, rain, and clouds.

https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/Sy ... 701ba6213e

What did you say to a response about weather that conflicted with your comment about weather?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You keep skipping between opposites, like 'global' and 'local' or 'weather' and 'climate'. You should really lash that down.

I never did any such thing. You made this shit up and mocked me and ridiculed me for something I absolutely did not say and now you're stuck on it like a broken record.

See, perfect red herring!

$1:

Australia fires: Storms wreak damage but bushfires 'far from over'

. . .

"Ultimately, we need to remain vigilant. It's 20 January - the fire season is far from over," Mr Andrews told reporters.

. . .
But officials told the BBC there were still "many months to go" in the fire season, particularly in Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the southern parts of NSW and Western Australia.

"We haven't yet reached the peak fire season in parts of southern Australia. History shows us that February is extremely dangerous," said Dr Richard Thornton from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Co-operative Research Centre.

"While the rain is important, it doesn't mean we're out of the woods," he said. "Our underlying conditions have been so dry that it won't take much to dry out the bush when the high temperatures and winds return."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51170994

So, like I wrote, more hot dry weather for Australia. The Red Herring you are trying to scale changes nothing about weather, or the climate. But it does show your unwillingness to discuss the subject.

[Prof_Chomsky]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

The real reason for climate skepticism is that alot of people are tired of being fed a steady diet of "were all gonna die if we don't (fill in the blank), none of which ever came to pass.

So, is it any wonder that people don't believe this latest round of "we're all gonna die" rhetoric that seems to do nothing but enrich a specific group of well off people and allow politicians to enact even more draconian socialist laws.

The enviromentalists have been crying wolf for so long now that people have tuned them out and yet, they haven't clued in that if they keep using the same "we're all going to die" refrain eventually no one will listen to them.

I couldn't agree more about this. Alarmist news reporting is a pox on our world.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

If they want to get people to listen to them they have to have meaningful dialogue that doesn't oppose critical thinking but embraces it. They have to stop attacking everyone who doesn't agree with them. They have to stop bowing at the alter of the leaders of the environmental movement and realise that they're just people who can and do make mistakes. They have to realise kids go to school to learn not be indoctrinated. They have to stop thinking of themselves as elite and everyone who disagrees with them is an ignorant loser bent on personally destroying the world. And maybe most of all, they have to stop using the end justifies the means method of intimidating or tricking people into following their beliefs.

Then you lost me. The scientists aren't doing ANY of that. Yes, there are some crazy blue haired gender fluids that big oil uses as the poster children to make people hate the science. But science is science. I feel like BS entertainment news has muddied the waters so much that people can't discern between science and opinion/bias.

[N_Fiddledog]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Hey can somebody quote this so Doc can give me an answer. It's something I've always wondered about.

NASA are the space guys, right? So why do Gavin and the other data manipulators at NASA GISS insist on using the Land Surface measurements? Not the satellites. Schmidt's predecessor at NASA, astronomer James Hansen, did it too.

Because satellites use a laser which measures the ground temperature where the laser touches, not the air temperature above it. There are too many factors that can influence ground temperature ranging from colour, consistency of the material, and light exposure. Whereas air temperature is what has always been historically measured using thermometers, and represents a more accurate overall temperature.

I don't have a lot of time right now, but that's not the way I understand it. Here's the one on how Satellites take temperatures that I try to understand sometimes from the guy who's in charge of UAH temps.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how ... -produced/

What am I missing? When do the lasers come into it?

Why would you consider land surface measurements more accurate when you would have to consider a multitude of problems that require manipulation of the land surface measurement raw data starting with Urban Heat Island effect and locational biases (eg tarmac pavement) over time.

[uwish]

storms are not more intense, nor increased in numbers, sea level is rising at the predicted rate and has not changed in ~ 200 years. C02 is not the control knob of 'weather' or climate the sun is. The mass manipulation of the raw data sets is so obviously criminal but you can no longer separate the science from the politics. It is now about wealth redistribution, taxation and anti-capitalist movements.

/so boring

There are 3 data sets 2 generally match and one doesn't. The one that does not match is the one that has been subject to massive manipulation. HUM? I wonder....you don't even need a calculator as a scientist to start to be skeptical about a data set that does not match the other two....

[Freakinoldguy]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

The real reason for climate skepticism is that alot of people are tired of being fed a steady diet of "were all gonna die if we don't (fill in the blank), none of which ever came to pass.

So, is it any wonder that people don't believe this latest round of "we're all gonna die" rhetoric that seems to do nothing but enrich a specific group of well off people and allow politicians to enact even more draconian socialist laws.

The enviromentalists have been crying wolf for so long now that people have tuned them out and yet, they haven't clued in that if they keep using the same "we're all going to die" refrain eventually no one will listen to them.

I couldn't agree more about this. Alarmist news reporting is a pox on our world.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

If they want to get people to listen to them they have to have meaningful dialogue that doesn't oppose critical thinking but embraces it. They have to stop attacking everyone who doesn't agree with them. They have to stop bowing at the alter of the leaders of the environmental movement and realise that they're just people who can and do make mistakes. They have to realise kids go to school to learn not be indoctrinated. They have to stop thinking of themselves as elite and everyone who disagrees with them is an ignorant loser bent on personally destroying the world. And maybe most of all, they have to stop using the end justifies the means method of intimidating or tricking people into following their beliefs.

Then you lost me. The scientists aren't doing ANY of that. Yes, there are some crazy blue haired gender fluids that big oil uses as the poster children to make people hate the science. But science is science. I feel like BS entertainment news has muddied the waters so much that people can't discern between science and opinion/bias.

Scientists may not but, politicians and the green elitists are which makes it even worse. You also have dissenting scientists being vilified and attacked, not so much by other scientists but by the end justifies the means crowd which is wrong.


I believe in climate change but what I don't believe is, that we as a species are the main cause. A fact which puts me at odds with alot of people and that's fine but, everytime I get attacked for my position I like I assume alot of others, become even more intolerant of the people doing the attacking and become even less responsive to their position on the subject.

[PluggyRug]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Oh look, insults from a weather expert.

Knowing enough to trust the entire global scientific community, across many countries & cultures, makes me average at best.

But, thinking you are personally more intelligent than that entire body of experts with IQ's many multiples that of your own, that have spent their entire life studying the science... well that's either idiocy, or arrogance.

Still more insults, you need to get a grip.

Here's another, should stir the anger.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Then you lost me. The scientists aren't doing ANY of that. Yes, there are some crazy blue haired gender fluids that big oil uses as the poster children to make people hate the science. But science is science. I feel like BS entertainment news has muddied the waters so much that people can't discern between science and opinion/bias.

Scientists may not but, politicians and the green elitists are which makes it even worse. You also have dissenting scientists being vilified and attacked, not so much by other scientists but by the end justifies the means crowd which is wrong.

I very much dislike the hype, but dissent in science is a myth just as is 'consensus'. The only thing that matters is what you can prove that others can take and look at and come to the same conclusion. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, it deals in probabilities.

If someone who claims to be a scientist can't prove what they claim, then they are rightly vilified. And yes, I'm talking about people like Judith Curry or Roy Spencer, who publish in journals that don't peer review and people who don't make their data or methods available for peer review. Without those things, it's just speculation.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I believe in climate change but what I don't believe is, that we as a species are the main cause. A fact which puts me at odds with alot of people and that's fine but, everytime I get attacked for my position I like I assume alot of others, become even more intolerant of the people doing the attacking and become even less responsive to their position on the subject.

Not attacking you but I've written this analogy before, and here it goes again: If you flip a coin, the probable odds are 50/50 that you will get heads. If you flip a coin 100 times, in a properly balanced system, you should get 50 heads and 50 tails. In actual tests, you'll likely get 49/51 because coins are not properly balanced.

In any given year, any day or any month can have a record high or low temperature for any other previously recorded day, in a balanced system. But when we had nearly 3 years straight of each month being the hottest recorded, except for the same month the year before -and always hotter, never colder - then the system is not balanced. That was when the idea that climate change might not be our fault ended. You can choose to believe that, or not. But it's still the way the world is.

Science is based on probability. And the odds are that we are doing great damage to the environment, and the environment may not be able to handle it.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

The real reason for climate skepticism is that alot of people are tired of being fed a steady diet of "were all gonna die if we don't (fill in the blank), none of which ever came to pass.

I'm also not a big fan of alarmism, but many of the predictions that the aforementioned accurate climate models have been making are for 2030, 2050, 2100. They haven't come to pass because we aren't then yet. And by the time to come to pass we may not be here any more.

So now is the time to do something, not later. Like the kids protesting on Fridays say "We'd be in school if you had done something."

[CharlesAnthony]

Who is the intended audience of that bullshit article???

Newsbot Newsbot:

Title: Why is climate skepticism so successful in the United States?

Lots of reasons.
I will bless you with the knowledge of only the single most bestest of all of the reasons: It is cheaper.

Any more stupid questions???

[DrCaleb]

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

Who is the intended audience of that bullshit article???

Newsbot Newsbot:

Title: Why is climate skepticism so successful in the United States?

Lots of reasons.
I will bless you with the knowledge of only the single most bestest of all of the reasons: It is cheaper.

Any more stupid questions???

You finally answered your own question! The article is for people whos' biases have been shaped by a constant stream of misinformation about the reality around us.

Because doing nothing is easier than interfering with profit.

[DrCaleb]

$1:

When 'math is accessible to any brain,' we can make better political, social choices, says mathematician

If more people were comfortable with math, they would approach politics and social issues in a more rational way, says mathematician and playwright John Mighton.

"We had a financial crisis because people didn't understand what would happen if their mortgage rates went up slightly," he told The Current's host Matt Galloway.

"And we have an environmental crisis because people can't add up the consequences of their actions because we're so afraid of math or numbers."

Mighton recently published a book on the subject: All Things Being Equal: Why Math is the Key to a Better World.

Math teaches you "to create arguments, to look for hidden presuppositions, to see patterns, make inferences," he says.

"We'd have a much healthier society if people didn't immediately seize on the first explanation of an event. If they were trained in probability, they'd learn to consider all the possibilities," he said.

"And more deeply, if people were confident in their problem-solving abilities, they would actually think deeply about the problems before they arrived at an opinion."

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the ... -1.5426840

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Because doing nothing is easier than interfering with profit.

Be sure to let me know when Canada stops importing oil from the Saudis.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Because doing nothing is easier than interfering with profit.

Be sure to let me know when Canada stops importing oil from the Saudis.

Red Herring.

[DrCaleb]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Because doing nothing is easier than interfering with profit.

Be sure to let me know when Canada stops importing oil from the Saudis.

Red Herring.

Sorry, I should elaborate.

Whether or not Irving Oil imports Saudi oil into it's refineries has no bearing on the disinformation that has been fed to the public by those and other oil companies. The disinformation only ensure the steady flow of that oil.