eliot jacobson calls For Violence and protests on climate change

[tableplay]

This logic seems very wonky to me. The question has been settled for decades now but you want to think it is "foolish" to think it is quite reasonable and studied ?

Fires occurred before man but that doesn't mean we can't conclude the source of fires. One could debate the issue with you if they're some sort of intellectual rebel but really?

Anyway, I was going to point out that I approached this from the perspective of a gambler which we both seem to be. This has been predicted for some time now. So let me get this right - All these scientists managed to get lucky for their grant money by predicting this shit was going to occur but when it is happening we're all going to suggest it would be foolish to think they are correct. Would you agree with this? Do the odds of them getting it right like that play any part in your reasoning?

I've already stated my position on this which is that there is too much complexity to make a definitive statement about the cause of the current hyperthermal. The people making these conclusions should then also explain how the other hyperthermals previous to this one occurred in the absence of man. I now defer to Upton Sinclair in regards to grant money: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

So the smartest guys in your HS who decided to dedicate themselves to knowledge instead of careers based on making money and we're supposed to believe they're driven by grant money.

A grifter with no jobs skills except pandering on a Youtube for money get far more credibility amongst many of a certain type.

I am fairly confident that physics PhDs can accurately model the interactions of the the radiation with greenhouse gasses. I'm fairly confident believing they can do this.

However, these same scientists can't model how the environment will respond with any significant accuracy.

I could understand your position if you were stating latter and not former but that isn't what is going on.

The question is not whether man caused global warming. The only question to be decided is when and how fast is the shit going to smack humanity in the face.

Why do climate scientists always present the narrative that the current hyperthermal is unique in the earth's history ? Comparisons are always drawn with respect to pre-industrialized and post-industrialized man and never further back than that. I've already posted about Nobel prize winning physicists who disagree that the cause is man-made, including videos of presentations showing their models. You ignore or forget about arguments made in posts that are more than a few weeks old. Grants are extremely competitive - fuck yes I believe there is heavy bias.