Scientists Want to Fight Climate Change by Blocking the Sun With Dust

submitted by format from singularityhub.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

In your other comment, below, however, you say that this is complicating a "fairly straightforward process". Your comment, however is anything but straightforward.

The scientific principles can be taught in high school chemistry/physics.

Suggesting that these concepts are beyond the grasp and understanding of the scientific community is absurd.

Additionally, the average person on the street can understand these concepts of they're adequately described with a given set of assumptions, and some basic analogies.

I explain this stuff to the neighborhood kids, and they understand much of it.
It's takes a bit longer to explain, and I have to think of creative analogies.

Climate hoaxsters intentionally create a unnecessary confusion.
This is done to manufacture confusion.

"Why not whip the teacher when the student misbehaves?" -Diogenes

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

While it is true that the BASIC PRINCIPLES of the CO2 greenhouse hoax, as well as that of the anthropogenic climate change hoax are easy to grasp, it is equally true that figuring out the equations that would allow even a strong AI coupled with a strong supercomputer to predict climate changes is insanely complex. There are, as u/StillLessons points out, simply too many damn variables and interactions.

As for the current models, (well to be fair, last I looked into these was about 5-6 years ago) they are so insane that tiny variations, well below measurement errors, of some of their input data can change a prediction from cooling to warming and vice-versa. They've had to adjust their models continuously since creating them, attempting to have them produce a consistent and "right" picture (of global WARMING obviously, otherwise they don't get budget) and they still can't do it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There are, as u/StillLessons points out, simply too many damn variables and interactions.

If an honest effort to completely model the inputs and outputs was being investigated, then I would probably agree with you, and concede this point.

Honest being the subjective term. Some people (extinction rebellion, etc.) are brainwashed and thoroughly convinced that up, is actually down, so...

Unfortunately, the variations in solar inputs have been either A) ignored, or B) fraudulently modeled to reflect the inverse of what actually physically occurs.

Grant funding is functionally non-existent for actual meteorology (in the physics dept), and is lavished upon the fake climate modelers, which isn't reflected in reality.

If the models do not predict observation, then they are worse than useless.
The current climate models are tools of propaganda disinformation.

Something with considering:

If I can easily and conclusively debunk CO2 global warming in a shoot-from-the-hip text forum exchange, then how are these theoretically "honest" climate modelers getting their lunacy through the peer review process?

Where are all of the others who understand the basic nuances of physics?

It can't be just be you, me, a handful of others here, and the kids in my neighborhood. ;-)

[–]StrategicTactic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I had a link to a site where John Coleman (founder of the Weather Channel) had a long video explaining exactly how the hoax got started and got out of control. Of course the original was removed from all official sites, and the site I had found it on was pretty cancerous and stopped working before I could strip the video.

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

This video?

The experts explain the global warming myth: John Coleman

It's on YouTube, which is cancerous. ;-)

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

Looks like what I remember, though poorer in quality. Guess they settled on that wikipedia warning for now. Probably be gone in a year.

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

They seem to avoid censoring mainstream sources. Unless they get popular.

This way they can claim that the weather channel notified the public that global warming is a hoax.