Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Read the sentence:
"The latter is also a lie. The major solutions that have been presented, don't depend upon funding through massively increased taxes."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzYiBvU3VcI

Magic Monetary Theory (MMT) i.e hyperinflation to fund a massive state, taxes and regulations (punitive fiscal policy) to punish political enemies.

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

You say overwhelming, your link says strong.

Either way it is just an opinion, not science.

It's right in the headline - so you can only be deliberately selectively interpreting:

Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4] A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

For his work as a scientist he was awarded the Lorentz Medal, Max Planck Medal, J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize, Harvey Prize and Enrico Fermi award. As a physicist he well placed and knowledgable enough to comment on and contribute to the science and cannot be dismissed so tritely.


Again consensus is politics and not science.

Not a climate scientist.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I am not.

Libertarians know nothing about macroeconomics - they're even less credible than climate change denialists (which they tend to be a subset of).

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Magic Monetary Theory (MMT) i.e hyperinflation to fund a massive state, taxes and regulations (punitive fiscal policy) to punish political enemies.

Again, you think the choice is between 1: Taxes, and 2: Hyperinflation - proving you know nothing about macroeconomics.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Not a climate scientist.

You are reduced to ad hominem attacks and substituting politics for science this is Lysenkoism.

Lysenko's political success was mostly due to his appeal to the Communist Party and Soviet ideology. Following the disastrous collectivization efforts of the late 1920s, Lysenko's "new" methods were seen by Soviet officials as paving the way to an "agricultural revolution." Lysenko himself was from a peasant family, and was an enthusiastic advocate of Leninism. The Party-controlled newspapers applauded Lysenko's "practical" efforts and questioned the motives of his critics. Lysenko's "revolution in agriculture" had a powerful propaganda advantage over the academics, who urged the patience and observation required for science. Lysenko was admitted into the hierarchy of the Communist Party, and was put in charge of agricultural affairs. He used his position to denounce biologists as "fly-lovers and people haters", and to decry the "wreckers" in biology, who he claimed were trying to disable the Soviet economy and cause it to fail. Furthermore, he denied the distinction between theoretical and applied biology. Lysenko presented himself as a follower of Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin, a well-known and well-liked Soviet horticulturist, but unlike Michurin, he advocated a form of Lamarckism, insisting on using only hybridization and grafting, as non-genetic techniques.

Support from Joseph Stalin increased Lysenko's momentum and popularity. In 1935, Lysenko compared his opponents in biology to the peasants who still resisted the Soviet government's collectivization strategy, saying that by opposing his theories the traditional geneticists were setting themselves against Marxism. Stalin was in the audience when this speech was made, and he was the first one to stand and applaud, calling out "Bravo, Comrade Lysenko. Bravo." This emboldened Lysenko, and gave him and Prezent free rein to slander any geneticists who still spoke out against him. Many of Lysenkoism's opponents, such as his former mentor Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, were imprisoned or executed because of their denunciations.

source

KyussB

Sidestepping bizarre conspiracy theories: In a discussion about a consensus among climate scientists - a person's either a climate scientist or they're not.

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

Sidestepping bizarre conspiracy theories: In a discussion about a consensus among climate scientists - a person's either a climate scientist or they're not.

A consensus means that they don’t know. It is just an opinion. The climate scientists opinions regarding future climate have been mostly wrong in the past. Doesn’t mean that they are wrong now, just that they don’t know.

Massive amounts of research are still required before climate scientists can have a good go at accurately predicting future climate.

KyussB

That's just science denialism - denying the validity of a scientific consensus. In this case, using ill-logic/arguments that aren't even worth addressing directly.

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

That's just science denialism - denying the validity of a scientific consensus. In this case, using ill-logic/arguments that aren't even worth addressing directly.

In science a theory is either correct or incorrect. Science is black or white. A consensus is an opinion and implies further data and evidence is required.

Consensus in science are frequently wrong. Real scientists do not treat consensus as facts.

Denialism is religious language again, not necessary.

KyussB

You don't know anything about the scientific method, if you think it's black and white. You're a-priori attacking the validity of scientific consensus itself - that's science denialism.

I'll use standard/mainstream dictionaries to define which words are 'religious', thanks - not "Websters dictionary for science denialists".

Pa ElGrande

Mariohario wrote: »

Is there truth to the claim that the data used to support the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis has been manipulated?

Who is making the claim and what dataset are they using? There are several temperature datasets like GISS and HadCRUT4 and several more. All are manipulated to certain extents sometimes that is legitimate to account for errors and land topologies, in other instances individuals have been caught manipulating data for deceptive purposes and others have been shown to be genuine human error or mistakes. The most notorious case of deception has been Michael Mann and the hockey stick. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has also earned a bad reputation among some for its manipulation as has the Australian Bureau of Metrology. The source data used by Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit has been "lost" so much for transparency! There are also other instances where graphs are displayed at points along the curve that suit the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative while the data that does not suit is left out or obfuscated as shown on a regular basis by Tony Heller.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Sidestepping bizarre conspiracy theories: In a discussion about a consensus among climate scientists - a person's either a climate scientist or they're not.

What scientific disciplines do you need to master to become a climate scientist? Would a knowledge of physics be a pre-requistite? If so what would you dismiss one of the worlds most eminent physicists?

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

source

KyussB

Huh? Jurassic Park screenwriter Michael Crichton?...

I know you don't check your sources much - but try not to mix up acclaimed scientists, with acclaimed science fiction writers.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

Sidestepping bizarre conspiracy theories: In a discussion about a consensus among climate scientists - a person's either a climate scientist or they're not.

are you a climate scientist

KyussB

That's irrelevant to what I was discussing.

Since we're asking random questions:
Is there a level of temperature increase due to climate change, that you'd view as unacceptable to pass? If so, what temperature level?

lalababa

Can capitalism go on as is without consumerism?
Perhaps we can 'consume' different things/experiences/foods?
We could consume less but at a higher monetary price?
Instead of consuming eg airplane flights ( to exotic holiday s) we could consume an electric train journey to Donegal? Or a sail/electric boat to South of France ?
Instead of consuming a load of steak or lobster we could eat some sexed up veg in a particularly nice sauce?
Instead of consuming plastic we could consume paper/glass whatever.
Of course a big one would be instead of consuming oil we could consume renewable energy.
And we actually can keep capitalism if tis that great, the western powers seem to think it's the bee's knees.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Huh? Jurassic Park screenwriter Michael Crichton?...

I know you don't check your sources much - but try not to mix up acclaimed scientists, with acclaimed science fiction writers.

You know it’s a time of universal deceit when only approved "experts" can tell the truth. What type of person would dismiss the supported conclusions of people simply on the basis they are not approved by them?

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

That's irrelevant to what I was discussing.

Since we're asking random questions:
Is there a level of temperature increase due to climate change, that you'd view as unacceptable to pass? If so, what temperature level?

Show us the science paper that tells us what the ideal temperature is?

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

That's irrelevant to what I was discussing.

Since we're asking random questions:
Is there a level of temperature increase due to climate change, that you'd view as unacceptable to pass? If so, what temperature level?

you might be so good as to set out your expertise on macroeconomics

your espoused theories on investment savings and money creation are as silly as the earlier stuff from the last thread about how money isnt real.

its very hard to take you seriously when you so furiously gatekeep any opinion or viewpoint of anyone else, usually with a trite one liner like above, when you- forgive me- come out with such rubbish constantly on any available topic.

your question, which you have been flinging at anyone for seventy pages as if it were anything more than a minor alley which only you have charged into, is of no interest to me. keep asking it, by all means.

but, and im only applying your own ridiculous standard here, if you arent a climate scientist, and you arent a macroeconomist, its absolutely hilarious how quickly you scuttle up those particular ropes when you come across anyone bothered to type back at you.

maybe you're a typist, actually?

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

You know it’s a time of universal deceit when only approved "experts" can tell the truth. What type of person would dismiss the supported conclusions of people simply on the basis they are not approved by them?

So you're admitting there is a consensus of human-caused climate change, among climate scientists?

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

you might be so good as to set out your expertise on macroeconomics

your espoused theories on investment savings and money creation are as silly as the earlier stuff from the last thread about how money isnt real.

its very hard to take you seriously when you so furiously gatekeep any opinion or viewpoint of anyone else, usually with a trite one liner like above, when you- forgive me- come out with such rubbish constantly on any available topic.

your question, which you have been flinging at anyone for seventy pages as if it were anything more than a minor alley which only you have charged into, is of no interest to me. keep asking it, by all means.

but, and im only applying your own ridiculous standard here, if you arent a climate scientist, and you arent a macroeconomist, its absolutely hilarious how quickly you scuttle up those particular ropes when you come across anyone bothered to type back at you.

maybe you're a typist, actually?

Again, you're making stuff up that I haven't said, and are attributing it to me.

If you can't directly quote me - in full context, no cut up sentences or relevant preceeding/following sentences left out - then don't attribute anything to me, as you have a habit of lying about what I've said.

I'm not interested in having a meta-discussion with you. If you've a problem with the arguments I put forward, and if they're so obviously 'rubbish', then you'll have no problem rebutting them, so?

Seems to me like you don't have any counterarguments, so are trying to shift to a meta-discussion avoiding the entire topic, instead.


I am curious, though:
Is there a level of temperature increase due to climate change, that you'd view as unacceptable to pass? Even just a yes or no to start with, rather than a number, will do - as refusing to answer that would say a lot to other posters, all on its own.

no macroeconomics or climate change qualifications?

ok, fair enough.

i guess we'll all accept that one can post in the thread without them and not persevere in using these as one-line dismissals.

keep asking the other thing. good typing practice.

KyussB

Nobody in the entire thread claimed that people need qualifications - of any kind - to post.

I would say that - if you refuse to answer a question, to specify that you have any climate change temperature limit that would be unacceptable to cross (not even a yes/no about having a limit at all) - then it's reasonable for posters to suspect that you don't have a limit.

Would that be an accurate representation of your views?

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

I would say that - if you refuse to answer a question, to specify that you have any climate change temperature limit that would be unacceptable to cross (not even a yes/no about having a limit at all) - then it's reasonable for posters to suspect that you don't have a limit.

How can anyone answer this question. Even the top climate scientists in the world can only give an opinion as to what that temperature may be.

We are years if not decades of research away from having a go at determining that temperature reasonably accurately.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

So you're admitting there is a consensus of human-caused climate change, among climate scientists?

Is this the 5 minute argument or the half hour?

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

How can anyone answer this question. Even the top climate scientists in the world can only give an opinion as to what that temperature may be.

We are years if not decades of research away from having a go at determining that temperature reasonably accurately.

Anyone can answer it because it's about setting boundaries - having an upper limit.

There is nobody on the thread who agrees with climate scientists calls for action, who would say that e.g. a 10-20 degree rise is acceptable - this would go beyond the upper limit for most posters.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Is this the 5 minute argument or the half hour?

Odd the way right-wing/Libertarian folk are fond of citing Monty Python for their satire - when the Python folk are all strongly critical of climate change denialism, Eric Idle even calling for the prosecution of the worst ones in industry.

A good analogous satire for climate change denialists, in this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY-HOYTz-rs

denialists vs typist

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

you might be so good as to set out your expertise on macroeconomics

your espoused theories on investment savings and money creation are as silly as the earlier stuff from the last thread about how money isnt real.

its very hard to take you seriously when you so furiously gatekeep any opinion or viewpoint of anyone else, usually with a trite one liner like above, when you- forgive me- come out with such rubbish constantly on any available topic.

your question, which you have been flinging at anyone for seventy pages as if it were anything more than a minor alley which only you have charged into, is of no interest to me. keep asking it, by all means.

but, and im only applying your own ridiculous standard here, if you arent a climate scientist, and you arent a macroeconomist, its absolutely hilarious how quickly you scuttle up those particular ropes when you come across anyone bothered to type back at you.

maybe you're a typist, actually?

Unfortunately I think you may be wasting your time on that one tbh.