The conspiracy theorist and the pile of money

submitted by christnmusicreleases from (files.catbox.moe)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Akali 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (25 children)

The thing is a lot of these research are building up on one another and tend to have many many assumptions. When you actually take a look at them you realise they have large margin of error which is the standard for prevision and forcast multiple decades in the future. The problem with those margin of error is that they are so gigantic that you cannot scientifically conclude anything. You can say the margin of error seem to be moving into a trend over time, but mathematically speaking you could be making a type 1 error by rejecting a true null hypothesis so theses ''studies'' are causing a clash with the scientific method.

What the pro climat change argue and they might likely be correct, altought it isn't a certainty, is that the worst case senario in these margin of error keeps happening years after years. Which as a strawman argument is quite convincing, but a margin of error is still a margin of error and history has proven many time that the past correlation don't nesserserly hold for the future.

So doing a forecast on climate change for 100 years is really at the complete opposite of what any reasonable scientis would do and is more of a mediatic show off than anything else.

Again, I'll just end this by mentionning that I believe in climate change, but that I think the main issue is overpopulation which the green media tend to simply forget. The population is growing exponentially and with each individual, their needs is following and it's not by dooming your own economy that a country will ever achieve to end climate change because they won't be adressing the main issue which is over population.

So, yes, you are correct, one is credible and the other isn't, but it's not that simple. It never is that simple.

[–]crackerjack 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

it isnt all about "climate change", but instead it is more about how the climate or environment is changing..

for the previous hundred years, we have been pumping oil out of the ground and spewing oil into the air and into the oceans and onto the ground. we have been pumping various chemicals and plastics into the oceans. the fish drink the chemicals and eat the plastics and you eat the fish.

when there is not enough water to drink, humanity will die.

one day, all of our world's rivers will look like the river in this video.

video: the world's dirtiest river

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkSXB-lRAp0

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

Climate change is an astroturfing campaign to distract from authentic environmental issues including pollution and toxicity issues, plus it's an excuse for the Carbon Tax Scam to make the poor worse off and a few billionaires. Who doesn't want to save the world?

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

that is nice, mr carswell..

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

It's not nice. It's propaganda that fools and distracts a lot of people.

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

most likely the exxon valdez oil spill is simply propaganda that is intended to fool a lot of people.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

https://youtu.be/5R0a2lY6A-k

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Outrageous proof for that outrageous claim?

" Video unavailable
The uploader has not made this video available in your country. "

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

climate change is absolutely not an astroturfing campaign.

some people, like mr carswell, seem to think that the many massive oil spills that we have had around the world dont affect our lives at all... this is all made up by scammers that want to push the fake global pollution issues...

you should take a look at the environmental damage that was caused by the exxon valdez spill, it was catastrophic.

and the british petroleum spill, of course that was a scam also..

video: british petroleum spill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iim-2KbPHcA

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oil spills are pollution, not climate change. Do not conflate the two.

Climate change is a distraction from the real pollution issues that actually affect lives.

Oil spills have evidence. Climate change has very flawed selective computer models.

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

mr carswell says that climate change is simply an astroturfing campaign.

watch this video and you will see mr carswell's astroturfing campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkSXB-lRAp0

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

That's pollution, not climate change.

It's okay as I once believed in climate change too. In fact it was the hardest red pill I ever swallowed. Learning about other scams was much easier.

FYI, the top result on https://DuckDuckGo.com/?q=Jason+Carswell is my IMDb page: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0141389/ where you'll see I was animation supervisor on the Dustin Hoffman narrated our climate change documentary, "Belonging" (aka "Ilauniq" the original Inuit word) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1470016/. I really liked the director's other work in 2006-2007 and it just happened that I was moving from Oakland to Victoria/Vancouver at the end of 2007 and he lived in Seattle, so we collaborated. Not only did 2008 bring rough times but sadly that documentary turned out to be weak at best. Around 2016 I actually dove into the idea that climate change could be a scam and it took me about half a year for my heart to come around to my head.

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

That's pollution, not climate change.

yeah i know... next you will be telling me that transgender is different from being a fag.

please dont give me the red pill, i am gonna pass on that.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

If you know then why are you making that disingenuous argument?

Remain ignorant if you prefer, but until you look deeper you'll never know if you're just an unintentional liar, another disinfo tool, and shill of the establishment.

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

new saidit forum rule: any person that disagrees with jason carswell is a shill of the establishment.

i am a bit unclear which establishment i am a shill for.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

By declining to take a red pill, by default you chose the 'normie' world and everything you say will be biased, paid or not, intentionally ignorant. Both sides of the bullshit left-right corporatocracy are pushing climate change and it will be the next existential threat after and tied into COVID hysteria - thus providing an excuse for greater tyranny.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

🤢

[–]crackerjack 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

is that funny, airbus?

i am actually having a conversation with someone named airbus, lol..

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

the main issue is overpopulation

Hysteria, just as manufactured as the COVID and climate change scams. Instead of socially engineering fear and consumerism along with shitty education and ignorance in people they could be teaching folks how to live more fulfilling sustainable lives. Meanwhile they're telling you that it's not their systems but you are the problem and you need to behave better by buying the proper light bulb while feeding you McDonald's instead of authentic solutions like getting rid of McDonalds and centralized paradigms like our reliance on controlled energy.

They will fuck with our energy and food until we comply completely or die.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

There's a lot of climate science that's not about predicting the future.

There's temperature reconstructions from the past. There's studies noting the impacts of climate change on biological systems, including the changing timing of spring events, changes to migrations and changing species ranges. There's studies on ice mass loss, on glacier retreat, and on sea level rise. There's research into oceanic acidification, and the detection of anthropogenic CO2 as it migrates into the ocean. There's human health impact studies, there's work on changing viability of various crops, and on economic impacts.

There's some famous work looking at attribution of the current temperature rise to anthropogenic causes. But this "When you actually take a look at them you realise they have large margin of error which is the standard for prevision and forcast multiple decades in the future." claim doesn't apply to much of the climate science that's done.

so theses ''studies'' are causing a clash with the scientific method.

Yeah. Science in general clashes with the scientific method. If you're testing a new vaccine, you can apply it. But if you're investigating the nature of gravitation or uncovering how the earth has responded to climate change in the past, the scientific method isn't what happens.

but that I think the main issue is overpopulation which the green media tend to simply forget.

Partly disagree. There are problems with overpopulation. We're depleting the worlds resources. But climate change is due to the combustion of fossil fuels. That's a technology problem. We'd be doing it at a slower rate if there were fewer people, but that doesn't solve it. You need to get your energy from other places than ancient forests.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

FYI, they keep "adjusting" the past numbers.

Ice has been melting since the last ice age - that's why we're not under 2km of ice.

Change is the only constant.

There are only problems with overpopulation in centralized cities and with land exploited by centralized industries determined to exploit as much as possible for profit regardless of the impacts.

Decentralize humanity and you'll solve most problems.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

FYI, they keep "adjusting" the past numbers.

Yeah, they keep making improvements as the knowledge gets deeper.

Ice has been melting since the last ice age - that's why we're not under 2km of ice.

"Ice Age" is an awkward term. Sometimes it's used to mean "glaciation", as in the movie "Ice Age". Sometimes it means a period of time at which the earth has significant ice sheets in both poles.

The warmest part of the current interglacial (not counting the warming of the past 100 years), was about 8000 years ago. So the ice had been growing since then, overall.

Change is the only constant.

Deep. But that doesn't refute that if you stick a whole lot of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere you get more greenhouse effect.

There are only problems with overpopulation in centralized cities and with land exploited by centralized industries determined to exploit as much as possible for profit regardless of the impacts.

There are ecological problems too.

Decentralize humanity and you'll solve most problems.

Not climate change. You have to use an energy source that doesn't involve releasing carbon from an ancient era into the atmosphere.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Anthropocentric climate change is questionable. There's MUCH more coming from natural sources like volcanoes. Nature is resilient.

I've got bigger issues with factory farming, resource extraction, pollution, chemical toxicity, etc. Climate change is a distraction from those.

Importantly you must look at who is telling you to be afraid. Same liar folks as behind the scamdemic and to believe in their science, which is never settled.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Anthropocentric climate change is questionable.

It's really not. Increasing greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect. It's not really rocket science.

There's MUCH more coming from natural sources like volcanoes.

Not even close. Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year..

Volcanic forcing is negative, because it is primarily the shading effect of volcanic aerosols that can be ejected into the upper atmosphere during very large eruptions.

Nature is resilient.

And yet the population sizes of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles have seen an alarming average drop of 68% since 1970..

Importantly you must look at who is telling you to be afraid. Same liar folks as behind the scamdemic and to believe in their science, which is never settled.

Academics from a wide range of organisations across a wide range of fields in a wide range of countries. It's not plausible that they're lying. And I can understand the physics, and can tell you that they're not with respect to the current global warming being anthropogenic.

Who is encouraging you to destroy the ecosystems of the planet? The same liar folks behind the fossil fuel industry campaigns.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's not really rocket science.

Actually the climate is faaaaaar more complex that rocket science. I designed and built rockets as a child. My teacher thought I was odd because rather than go play at recess I would draw rockets with internal schematics.

There's MUCH more coming from natural sources like volcanoes.

Not even close.

You and whatever selective sources you may have are full of shit.

Back to your greenhouse gasses, besides the methane that humanity is releasing there's an abundance of it naturally and methane among other gasses are FAR more problematic than the natural carbon dioxide (((they))) want us all to fear.

Nature is resilient.

And yet the population sizes of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles have seen an alarming average drop of 68% since 1970.

I didn't say wildlife was man-proof.

Yes, among many other things, dead oceans by 2050 is a serious fucking problem that climate change is distracting us from.

It's not plausible that they're lying.

LOL

Their grants and paychecks depend upon them not choosing to be skeptical and to not stand up to authority.

And I can understand the physics

I understand shills too.

Who is encouraging you to destroy the ecosystems of the planet? The same liar folks behind the fossil fuel industry campaigns.

Those are the same liar folks who have FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE over ever aspect of our lives, industry, supply, security, media, government, banking, etc, etc, etc.

They are the ones who tell you that we need to change a lightbulb to save the world. They blame the individual instead of the entire rigged system that externalize for profits, pollute, and drive our consumerist culture.

We must change the culture and change the systems. Start by rejecting their bullshit first.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even if sme denies man-made climate change there obviously is a steady and continuous increase in climate volatility.

E.g. :

  • The number of hurricanes in the western hemisphere set a new record in 2020. Again

  • Two so-called century-floods in Eastern Germany in less than 20 years

  • Peat burning for months near Moscow, because of perma-frost unknown until lately.

  • New South Wales burns in 2019 and then gets a disastrous flood in 2020. Both for weeks.

  • Deep soil drought in Central Europe increasing (even though there were floods) . The soil in Poland e.g. became so dry in the last few years that it seems almost impossible to recover the loss in crop yields. Ever