sorted by:
new
hottopinsightfulfun

And they wonder why they get called "Snowflakes" by SundogsPlace in SundogsPlace

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

Look closely, she got hit in the eye by the punctured balloon - extremely painful and potentially damaging to her eye.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

Islam law is woman are property, blacks are slaves, and Arabs are superior

So is Christian law, if you're referring to deeply conservative (i.e. right wing) interpretation of fundamental scriptures.

So you're pointing to yet another example of how destructive right wing people are - whether they call themselves Christians or Muslims or white supremacists.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

Antiwaxxing or antiscience rather, is unfortunately prevalent. It's sad that a former scientist would fall so low. Yes, it bothers me that a Nobel prize holder would make such an unscientific show. But I guess he either needs the money or the attention he gets from easily conned laymen.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

I've clearly proven to you -by your own arguments - that you are being played for a fool by frauds.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

Why did they stop calling it global warming?.

Because the fossil fuel lobby forced them to tone down the seriousness of climate change.

It saddens me when ordinary people like you are taken advantage of by a fraud like that Nobel laureate. He abuses his Nobel credentials for idk, money, easy fame in non-intelectual circles

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

The cartels are pushing the global warming hoax.

No, they're pushing the anti-warming hoax. It's glaringly obvious, I've tried to explain that to you in several different ways, how can you not see it? You even posted a video of some Nobel laureate who clearly was presenting a lie and who was not very good at lying.

EDIT:

You've been emotional caught by their narrative just like the antivaxxers: They tell you an emotional sob-story of someone unjustly shunned by the community wrapped in a hilariously bad pseudo-scientific explanation and you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

I gave you a simple assignment: In the video you posted:

  1. write down every single theory he presents as a climate theory

  2. Identify how he derived at that theory

  3. Identify how he decided that it was a valid expression of what climate scientists have to say

I think you will find that almost all of his "theories" are invented by him out of thin air so that he can "prove" the wrong and claim he is proving the climate scientists wrong while in fact just telling an irrelevant story exploiting the fact that he once was awarded the Nobel prize.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

There publishing and Grant cartels punish independent thinkers.

The grant and publishing cartels have frightened the scientific community into silence.

If you want to keep that claim you also need to show why it doesn't have the exact opposite effect: The obvious conclusion to that argument is that climate researchers have consistently been intimidated to under-report and tone down the seriousness of global warming. Thus, you're in fact arguing that climate change likely is much worse than climate researchers have claimed.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

I selected the most relevant feild for comparison with bogus climate modeling nonsense.

Not following you completely, are you saying that the video you posted is an example of bogus climate research? I agree it's full of obvious bogus claims but it doesn't represent climate research.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

See my second reply.

This guy has stopped doing science and is instead cashing in on his "Nobel laureate" title doing pseudo science shows.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

Now I watched it. While he sprinkles a few true statements his argumentation is simply not worthy of a scientist. It's really a shame that a scientist is willing to embarrass himself like that. I don't know what happens to some scientists when they stop being active. After this performance I would definitely question his research in general.

This video is full of ad hominem and strawman arguments: He holds a grudge against Obama, why would that be relevant to reiterate in a scientific talk? That alone is enough for me to totally dismiss him as relevant.

But more importantly: Notice how many times he makes up an ad hoc theory he then claims to be a global warming theory with specific expected consequences, which he then goes on to prove wrong. It should be obvious even to someone with a minimum of scientific experience that most of those strawman theories are totally bogus. This is why you shouldn't trust someone like him, and shouldn't take "Nobel laureate" as guarantee for quality.

I suggest you start by writing down every single theory he presents in his talk and figure out how he arrived at them and how he determined them as valid expressions of what climate researchers have to say.

It's easy enough to construct all kinds of far fetched theories which you can then prove wrong. If you ascribe those theories to someone else your aim is to prove them wrong on the basis of something they never claimed themselves. In this case his strawmen are even very simplistic and unsophisticated. I would have expected better from someone who's won a Nobel prize.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

I'm going to take a closer look. But a quick scan of the video got me this:

"global warming is a religion, like when the Catholic Church says the world is not round"

They never said that. Why would I believe a Nobel laureate if he not only gets such a basic fact wrong but goes on to use it as a polemic argument. I mean, he's a Nobel laureate and should know much better than being so sloppy.

I immediately assume he's just as sloppy with the rest of his arguments.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

their predictions were disgraceful failures..

Says who?

I see no one, literally not a single person with insight or relevant knowledge who would agree with you on that.

So, you picked some random scientific field and decided that you know more than every single scientist in that field.

Well done.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

So basically, you randomly picked one specific field and chose to believe the fossil fuel industry's narrative over the scientists. And to defend this you invented some categories you call "the physics dept" and "hard science" whatever they mean.

They closely guard access to their "climate" models, and "climate" data

No they don't, a lot of it is even publicly available for download, in some cases you need to make agreements with the institution to get it or you may have to pay, but it is quite readily available. Don't trust people who say it isn't. The problem for someone like you is that the data is humongous (many Tb big) and very hard to analyze, that's why I wondered how you analyzed it. Unfortunately you mentioned a couple of small desktop statistics programs that are mostly used by students (used to be as they're not used much anymore). There's no way you could estimate a climate model on a desktop computer.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

Please answer my question: is it only climate science you distrust or is it all science? If it's only climate science, in what way does it differ from other sciences?

What Happened to the Linux Foundation? by useless_aether in Linux

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

Embrace..., extend..., extinguish

They're all there now.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

I know you answered, and you apparently misunderstood my question. What I'm getting at (and where my questioning started) is this: are climate scientists in your mind different from other scientists? Are their findings less trustworthy than the findings by scientists in other fields?

The reason for my asking is this, you seem to argue that there is a social gate keeping process in the scientific community that forces scientists to report things that are not true. I agree, from years of personal experience, that there are mechanisms at play leading to such things from time to time.

But what have me wondering about your arguments is this: What you describe is a general mechanism not specific to climate science and one that in my experience is much more prevalent in fields closer related to industry (when you cooperate with industry there is a lot of pressure to report results that will sell products).

So, from a logic standpoint: either all scientists are corrupted (unknowingly or otherwise) and are all equally untrustworthy - or you specifically picked climate science as a particularly corrupt field (unknowingly by scientists) for some reason.

And therefore the question: does climate science, in your mind, differ from other sciences? If so why? If not, why do you specifically not trust climate science if it's just like any other science.

To add: your argument about gate keeping does in my mind point in the exact opposite direction: strong industry interests have systematically intimidated climate scientists into under reporting the seriousness of climate change.

It is, to me very clear that you have been tricked into promoting the agenda of a fossil fuel business alliance that feel seriously threatened by sustainable energy technologies. Some of the strongest opponents to global action against climate change are Saudi Arabia, Russia and US, the biggest oil producers.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

[–]endopassing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see the perception of left wingers vs right wingers as dividing people and causing strife between people while distracting people from real atrocities

I agree, I may need to find other words to describe the type of people I'm talking about. What I'm talking about are people who are particularly derogative while promoting hate against women, poc, open racism etc. When these people don't just take part in civilized debate but start systematically spam and troll, which they did on reddit and do on voat and 4chan, then I think the platform needs to deal with it if it wants to survive.

I'm not saying "they must" but if they don't get that kind of vile environment under control it's not a place for me.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

until I personally investigated the facts

That's damn interesting. How did you do that?

Unfortunately, the evidence does not support the man made climate change model.

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.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

The video is essentially an antivax hoax just against climate research. Do you also promote antivaxxer or flatearth videos?

You know I trust the scientists in all three cases - and many others.

And you still didn't answer my question: are climate scientists different from other experts? Are truths they promote more wrong than the truths of other experts?

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

I oppose all haters, left wing, religious, sports, incels, sjws. However, right now right wingers are prolifilic with a consistent destructive behavior. Therefore we need to specifically deal with them if we want our environment to thrive and continue to be friendly. Same thing if sports fan would troll every thread pushing whatever hate against some other team.

Leftist SJW assaults 74 year-old Jewish man for his MAGA hat – Then all hell breaks loose… by HeyImSancho in SundogsPlace

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

Absolutely, though it aint gonna happen :(.

People can get permission to own a gun, sure, but a right that's ridiculous.

Leftist SJW assaults 74 year-old Jewish man for his MAGA hat – Then all hell breaks loose… by HeyImSancho in SundogsPlace

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

No, they're not and no they're not.

Why would you even say that?

Although I'm all for scrapping a2 yesterday, it's ridiculous that insane or suicidal people or people with dementia or anger issues should somehow have the right to be armed.

A2 doesn't create freedom, it creates fear, it makes schools into fortresses and jails for kids who should be allowed to grow up without fear of being murdered by a random stranger.

Leftist SJW assaults 74 year-old Jewish man for his MAGA hat – Then all hell breaks loose… by HeyImSancho in SundogsPlace

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

electing Republicans

No, electing Democrats is the solution today. That's the beauty of democracy, when one party has been in power too long, the corruption grows too strong and we need the other party to clean it up. Even within the parties we need some alternative force once in a while to undermine the old corruption channels.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

Left-wingers are the most hateful people.

Disagree, hateful people are the most hateful people. Partisan people (like yourself) tend to call out haters from the other side while silently or openly supporting haters from their own side - including supporting the violence they perpetrate.

The only way forward is to oppose all haters. Right now, right wing terrorism is far more prevalent than left wing or religious terrorism. Some years ago other groups topped the list of terrorists. But the last couple of years right wing terrorism is on top. So do humanity a favor and oppose all violence not just what you see as "the other side".

The USE of ""33"" in News Stories, are they all JUST Coincidences? by Jesus in conspiracy

[–]endopassing 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is it connected to 33rd degree of Freemasonry.

AKA selection bias

Leftist SJW assaults 74 year-old Jewish man for his MAGA hat – Then all hell breaks loose… by HeyImSancho in SundogsPlace

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

The enemies of freedom are making dramatic gains

Yes, we need to fight them, hopefully we can regain the senate and get a decent president in 2020.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

I have started a policy of blocking users who I find are trolling, either intentionally or by being too steeped in stupidity.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

It's pretty simple

Exactly my point, no it's not and you don't know what you're talking about. Talking to you is like talking to an antivaxxer.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

Maybe it will calm down

No it won't. I didn't die down on voat or 4chan - or reddit for that matter, reddit fought it down while 4chan is dealing with it now and voat is dying - if not already dead.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

It's because they congregate where they're not yet banned for inciting violence or general destructive or hateful behavior.

No social network can survive in the long run without curbing hatefulness. So either saidit will deal sensibly with right wingers or it will descent into voat and disappear.

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

Would I include 9/11 truthers?

Well, first of all, you made (in your other answer) claims that climate scientists don't follow proper scientific methods, and their "models have a dismal prediction record". I don't know what you base that claim on other than "a handful of dissenting voices". So apparently "a handful of dissenting voices" have more weight to you than the entire scientific community. You're obviously not a climate scientist and I have a strong feeling that you're not a scientist in the first place. Therefore I would also assume that you don't even know how to evaluate the predictive performance of different models.

And that's exactly how antivaxers argue.

When you don't know what you're talking about it's easy to convince yourself that you actually do and that the subject is easy to understand see Dunning–Kruger effect.

Also: you still didn't answer my question: are climate scientists more prone to lying than other professionals?

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

I'm intimately familiar with academia including privately funded research. But you don't answer any of my questions. I didn't ask "why do you think climate scientist are lying" because that seems to be the question you're answering.

I asked you (rephrasing):

  1. do you think climate scientists are different from other experts i.e. do you think they lie more than say bridge engineers?

  2. Who would you trust more: someone who know nothing about climate science or someone who does?

What I'm implying is that climate deniers are very selective in who they "trust". They will happily cite people who have no relevant knowledge as if they were experts, just like flatearthers or antivaxer will trust some pseudo science airhead over actual experts.

Would any of those reality deniers denounce a flight safety engineer or an actual pilot when embarking on their next flight? Would you?

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists by sawboss in videos

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

I'm curious about a couple of things:

First: do you think climate scientists are different from other professionals? Specifically: most professions tend to agree on a set of core "truths" which they then promote as the truth to non-experts. For example bridge engineers agree on how to build safe bridges, road engineers agree on how to build safe roads, airplane engineers agree on how to build safe planes. Do you think climate scientists are more inclined to lie?

Second: Who would you trust most about climate, someone who does not know climate science or someone who does? If you trust an non-expert more, why is that and would you also trust a non-expert to be the pilot on your next flight?

At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child—miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism, is a philosophy of sniveling brats. — PJ O'Rourke by hennaojisan in politics

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

That's an accurate description of any zealot, regardless of them being politically inclined or fighting for any other "cause".