Recent interview with Eliot Jacobson

[accountinquestion]

That dude is biden level cognitively.

It would be awesome to see him debate those paper authors. I would be surprised if his criticisms are complete nonsense. I hope he's right. Mayne extreme weather has not increased. I could see that easily being a biased observation

A lot of his critiques are framed as a conspiracy theories.

Still I will continue on in my car.

He was a big deal 50 years ago for sure. Wonder what his current age is..

[tableplay]

Here is a another video (previous video: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...842#post153842) from MIT meteorology professor emeritus Richard Lindzen - this one is quite succinct regarding the issues at hand:

[accountinquestion]

Here is a another video (previous video: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...842#post153842) from MIT meteorology professor emeritus Richard Lindzen - this one is quite succinct regarding the issues at hand:

Ahh the universal excuse. Whataboutism. The climate has always changed as if the rate doesn't matter. It is comical to me how people get into such prestigious positions and apply such logic.

He talks about tidal measurements having issues but one can look at ice shelves and do volumetric calculations.

Anyway regardless this guy is a fool if he ignores the rate of change in things and writes off all changes as roughly equivalent. A smart person who understands things should see that immediately.

These guys always stick on some shortcoming of measuring which is never intentional and go from there. They seem to ignore data otherwise. The previous guy is stuck on how 70% of the surface is ocean and makes it impossible to uniformly measure. This guy goes into tidal gouges.

[tableplay]

Here is a another video (previous video: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...842#post153842) from MIT meteorology professor emeritus Richard Lindzen - this one is quite succinct regarding the issues at hand:

Ahh the universal excuse. Whataboutism. The climate has always changed as if the rate doesn't matter. It is comical to me how people get into such prestigious positions and apply such logic.

He talks about tidal measurements having issues but one can look at ice shelves and do volumetric calculations.

Anyway regardless this guy is a fool if he ignores the rate of change in things and writes off all changes as roughly equivalent. A smart person who understands things should see that immediately.

These guys always stick on some shortcoming of measuring which is never intentional and go from there. They seem to ignore data otherwise. The previous guy is stuck on how 70% of the surface is ocean and makes it impossible to uniformly measure. This guy goes into tidal gouges.

MIT needs to improve their vetting process I guess. They should focus their recruitment efforts on VCT members.

[accountinquestion]

Here is a another video (previous video: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...842#post153842) from MIT meteorology professor emeritus Richard Lindzen - this one is quite succinct regarding the issues at hand:

Ahh the universal excuse. Whataboutism. The climate has always changed as if the rate doesn't matter. It is comical to me how people get into such prestigious positions and apply such logic.

He talks about tidal measurements having issues but one can look at ice shelves and do volumetric calculations.

Anyway regardless this guy is a fool if he ignores the rate of change in things and writes off all changes as roughly equivalent. A smart person who understands things should see that immediately.

These guys always stick on some shortcoming of measuring which is never intentional and go from there. They seem to ignore data otherwise. The previous guy is stuck on how 70% of the surface is ocean and makes it impossible to uniformly measure. This guy goes into tidal gouges.

MIT needs to improve their vetting process I guess. They should focus their recruitment efforts on VCT members.

So ....... you can't tell me how I'm wrong?

I know you're a smart guy. Probably very high on IQ tests. Therefore I know you can think on your own. This is a near universal trait amongst gifted types. So ... please put effort into telling how I am wrong.

[tableplay]

Ahh the universal excuse. Whataboutism. The climate has always changed as if the rate doesn't matter. It is comical to me how people get into such prestigious positions and apply such logic.

He talks about tidal measurements having issues but one can look at ice shelves and do volumetric calculations.

Anyway regardless this guy is a fool if he ignores the rate of change in things and writes off all changes as roughly equivalent. A smart person who understands things should see that immediately.

These guys always stick on some shortcoming of measuring which is never intentional and go from there. They seem to ignore data otherwise. The previous guy is stuck on how 70% of the surface is ocean and makes it impossible to uniformly measure. This guy goes into tidal gouges.

MIT needs to improve their vetting process I guess. They should focus their recruitment efforts on VCT members.

So ....... you can't tell me how I'm wrong?

I know you're a smart guy. Probably very high on IQ tests. Therefore I know you can think on your own. This is a near universal trait amongst gifted types. So ... please put effort into telling how I am wrong.

The causes of climate change cannot be assigned to humans because the variance is massive and non-human factors dwarf those of humans. Thus the contribution by humans cannot be measured accurately enough due to all of these other factors. Rapid climate changes in earth's ancient history (pre-industrial and pre-human history) have already been documented via deep core samples. There have been previous posts that already address this. For example, in one post I made sometime back, I made the point that scientists were so perplexed by massive temperature rises several million years ago that they came out with the very far-fetched Silurian hypothesis, which states there were previous non-human advanced civilizations in earth's ancient past which may have caused these rapid changes. Rather than throwing up their hands in the air and declaring these sorts of far-fetched hypotheses or falsifying data (recall my posts about climategate), I think it is better for climate scientists to admit that we don't understand the exact causes of climate change. Anyway, the main take from this should be that non-human processes can produce massive, rapid changes. When human beings happen to live in one of these rapid change windows, we cannot simply conclude that it is humans causing this, when it may be that they are caused by non-human factors.

I'll also add that Professor Lindzen knows infinitely more about the causes of climate change than I do. You are certainly free to think you know more about it than he does (if you wish to do so).