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..
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.Originally Posted by tableplay
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.Originally Posted by accountinquestionAhh 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.Originally Posted by tableplay
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.
So ....... you can't tell me how I'm wrong?Originally Posted by tableplayMIT needs to improve their vetting process I guess. They should focus their recruitment efforts on VCT members.Originally Posted by accountinquestionAhh 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.Originally Posted by tableplay
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.
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.Originally Posted by accountinquestionSo ....... you can't tell me how I'm wrong?Originally Posted by tableplayMIT needs to improve their vetting process I guess. They should focus their recruitment efforts on VCT members.Originally Posted by accountinquestion
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.
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).
Variance is massive? You don't think the global nature over decades of direct observation kinda removes "variance"? What does this mean? No - the temperature has not changed in history like it has since the industrial revolution
Human factors? You mean the fact that humans are burning carbon that took 10s of millions of years to produce by massive dead animals ? Burning it over the course of a couple hundred years? Realize that humans didn't create the carbon based fuels. It was the dinosaurs and over many many millions of years. That is what makes these fuels so enticing and why we built humanity off of them.
I don't know what "accurate enough" means. I would think that if there were other reasons of such signficance they would be glaringly obvious and measurable. No? The physics behind it is known but modeling it accurately is very hard. That doesn't mean it is isn't true. (Although deniers tend to lean on the tenant - if you can't measure/model perfectly then it should be disregarded)
They don't know the exact proportions of the various contribution are, yes. That in no way tells us the overall sceince is NOT overwhelmingly obvious and true.
The odds that so many people had such a consensus over a global phenonmen many decades in advance and then having it true out of randomness? What are those odds? Effectively 0. KewlJ telling all truth is more likely than that and it simply is not possible.
These factors that are going on but no one can point to them? Like ghosts?
Oh he likely knows more than me too. I have no way of knowing that but I can judge his logic. It is crazy to say "Don't worry, the world's climate has always been changing". That should be beyond obvious that it is horrible reasoning, bordering on nonsensical. If I cared enough I'd sit around and think of a whole list of analogies that demonstrate how bad this sort of thinking is. "It has happened before and things woud up ok - therefore don't worry about it"
Hickam's Dictum
Whatabout whataboutism?Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.
It is something you like to say because you find it really clever?Originally Posted by mickeycrimmWhatabout whataboutism?Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Whataboutism is the slippery slope and a sign of a moral rot.
The IPCC climatologists that forged data in order to show that Man is mostly responsible were forced to do so because of non-human variance (Climategate). What other reason would they have had to forge data if this weren't the case ?Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Your question is built upon a false premise. They have pointed out the non-human factors, for example gravitational interactions, including changes in the Earth’s orbit, axial tilt and torque. The variables used in weather models do not contain information about whether humans were the cause or not - they are simply direct measurements of various factors as shown below:Originally Posted by accountinquestion
There have been rapid weather changes prior to the industrial revolution. That is why NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt proposed the far-fetched Silurian hypothesis to explain them.
Not giving an opinion on the validity of global warming or not, but just because something has broad scientific consensus does not necessarily make it true.
These are all examples of things that had broad scientific consensus in the early or mid twentieth century:
Luminous ether, eugenics, homosexuality as a mental disorder, lobotomies, cocaine as a cure all drug, health benefits of cigarettes, Thalidomide for pregnant women, DDT as a miracle chemical, craniometry, steady state universe, safety of lead in pipes gas & paint, etc. etc. etc.
First person: climate change is man madeOriginally Posted by accountinquestionIt is something you like to say because you find it really clever?Originally Posted by mickeycrimmWhatabout whataboutism?Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Whataboutism is the slippery slope and a sign of a moral rot.
2nd person: whatabout nature?
First person: that’s whataboutism.
The first person was saying “ ‘Whatabout’ climate change being man made.”
First person is just as guilty as the 2nd person of whataboutism.
Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.
As the disagreements continue....I look forward to the wonderful sounds of fracking, drilling, pumping, and the price of fuels of all kinds becoming much more affordable to the hard working men & women (there are ONLY 2 genders) of this country--and the hopeful elimination of many of those stupid ginormous wind fans that litter far too many parts of the US.
It's a beautiful thing. Don'tcha think so, libs?
In Obama's face: ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Only in this case, they're the RIGHT consequences.
Great point Ben - excellent examples.Originally Posted by DGenBen
You didn't have 100s or 1000s of people researching it. You didn't have a lot of things. Cavemen believed shit too. Yanno?Originally Posted by DGenBen
1000s of accomplished people didn't study the stuff you mentuoned in depth leading to international meeting over the same thing. No large group of people (if any group) committed themselves to studying the above subjects.
The simple fact is it they said this has happened and we have had an unprecedented occurrence. Maybe there was some heating somewhat close to this rate but it happened once at most as far as I know. It is not normal and super rare at best. Yet the scientists predicted this one and it came true. I'd love to see you doubters wrap odds around that. You can do it for obvious things that are discrete and quantifiable. You have enough data to make an estimate that the scientists just for pure lucky. Try it. I did that in another post. Like 1 in 10000 iirc.
Man has survived global cooling periods but not the other way around. You can bundle up bit when it is hot it doesn't work like
That ......
Last edited by accountinquestion; 12-04-2024 at 09:58 AM.
Well you don't know what most people mean by whataboutism but yes you can recursively doubt everything. I use whataboutism when the first thing seems by far the most likely.Originally Posted by mickeycrimmFirst person: climate change is man madeOriginally Posted by accountinquestionIt is something you like to say because you find it really clever?Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Whataboutism is the slippery slope and a sign of a moral rot.
2nd person: whatabout nature?
First person: that’s whataboutism.
The first person was saying “ ‘Whatabout’ climate change being man made.”
First person is just as guilty as the 2nd person of whataboutism.
I operate off occams razor and you guys are Hickams
Dictum all day.
Wait... luminous ether is not a thing?
Actually I’m afraid you are incorrect about that.Originally Posted by accountinquestionYou didn't have 100s or 1000s of people researching it. You didn't have a lot of things. Cavemen believed shit too. Yanno?Originally Posted by DGenBen
.
Just taking for example the first 3 luminous ether, eugenics, & homosexuality as a mental disorder, there were literally thousands of people researching these, writing scientific papers about these, etc. back when these theories were popular.
Even Albert Einstein was very interested in luminous ether early in his career.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
From Wikipedia:
“The contemporary history of eugenics began in the late 19th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[6] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia,[7] and most European countries (e.g. Sweden and Germany). In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock.”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...ental-disorder
“ First published in 1968, DSM-II (the second edition of the American classification of mental disorders, and a forerunner of DSM-5) still listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In this, the DSM followed in a long tradition in medicine and psychiatry, which in the nineteenth century appropriated homosexuality from the Church and, in what must have seemed like an élan of enlightenment, promoted it from sin to mental disorder.
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members at its convention to vote on whether they believed homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain it.
The APA then compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it, in effect, with ‘sexual orientation disturbance’ for those people ‘in conflict with’ their sexual orientation. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM”
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote