use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~4 users here now
Videos with blood or gore should be marked as NSFW
25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists
submitted 5 years ago by sawboss from youtube.com
view the rest of the comments →
[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago* (4 children)
You obviously don't know how science work, which is normal outside of scientific circles. But you go on to make scientific claims as if you do. And that is pretty problematic, like antivaxxers claiming to know "scientifically" that essential oils are better at curing diseases.
There was a lot of scientific climate debate up through the 1980s and 1990s but it was essentially settled in early 2000s: current climate change is man made, and it threatening the planet. True there may be a few holdouts like the ones you mention but they don't represent the science, and it's strange that anyone would trust them over the entire community.
You mentioned in an earlier response that the fact that these holdouts were shunned by the community was "a disgrace". No it's not, it's an emotional argument but there is little room for emotions in science. This is exactly how science is supposed to work. If a researcher makes outlandish or revolutionary claims they must be met with rigorous skepticism. That's the case also for valid claims. They must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If they stand up to the rigorous trials in the community they will survive. You have no idea how many crazy theories are fielded, most die before they leave the lab because they don't work. Some live a bit longer and a few survive to be the new truth.
EDIT:
As an example look at how the experiments with the Ion thruster and with Cold fusion were received by their respective scientific communities. Both were met with extreme skepticism, but the scientific community still investigated further. One was accepted the other not.
There is a logic fallacy in your argument: you have made up your mind that those few "dissenting voices" are more trustworthy than the entire scientific community and then you move backwards to construct an explanation of the mechanism that leads to the community being wrong. Further the specific claims you make with regard to the mechanism do not logically lead to any specific conclusion, that is, there may be issues with how science work (which is very true) but there is no indication which direction it would move the conclusions. You claim that they would lead to overly alarmist predictions but if I look at the economic forces with a vested interest in climate research most of the powerful economic entities would rather undermine than support an climate change agenda. So in my analysis, your argument leads to the opposite conclusion: climate scientist have systematically under-reported the seriousness of climate change. Still we should look at the facts and we should overwhelmingly trust the scientific community over "a handful of dissenting voices".
In my view you have been ensnared by the old industry (fossil fuel industry, car makers) who see emerging sustainable technologies as serious threats and you are now promoting their agenda while the planet is dying.
[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago (3 children)
I understand the sciences on an applied professional level.
For the better part of 30 years, I was in agreement with the man made climate change consensus; until I personally investigated the facts.
At that point (with great difficulty) I has the choice of changing my view, or accept intellectual dishonesty.
Through great effort, I chose the intellectually honest path. I'm sure you'd agree that It is much easier to go with the group think consensus on this issue.
Unfortunately, the evidence does not support the man made climate change model.
The environmental weather is exactly what we should expect if we follow the long-term 1000 year historical trend.
The p-hacked models and graphs that say otherwise, are bogus.
[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago (2 children)
until I personally investigated the facts
That's damn interesting. How did you do that?
Again, that's extremely interesting. How did you assess the models what were your findings. What data did you use, and what method did you use to analyze the data?
On a personal level I would also be very interested in what software you used in your analysis.
[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago (1 child)
How did you do that?
I'd like to invite anyone interested in investigating these details to check the following:.
Fancy software like minitab or JMP to analyze the facts.
Simply review the historical record vs. predicted. It's basic arithmetic, with original sources.
One last note:. You may recall that man made climate change was one called man made global warming.
They changed the name, because the warming trend was bogus, and indefensible.
view the rest of the comments →
[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)
[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)
[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)