You know what is not a good standard? "It's better to be safe than sorry".
Often the "safe" option has known negative impacts, whereas the "sorry" option is more catastrophic, but unlikely.
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
Often the "safe" option has known negative impacts, whereas the "sorry" option is more catastrophic, but unlikely.
In that Patrick Brown article you linked, he admits completely that climate change is a real thing happening now. Didn't you read it?
As I said, you don't know how it works.
If you find something wrong with an article, you can change it, although many articles are either locked because of controversial subject matter or subject to review by a body of volunteer researchers. For the Sahara article in question there is a list of all the changes --
Sahara: Revision history - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
and also a talk forum where users can discuss requested changes
Talk:Sahara - Wikipedia
Happy to be of service in furthering your education.
You graduated from University of Wiki. No thanks, professor... I'll pass. And no more tap dancing, please. Your legs have to be exhausted.
Calm down, Dad... I know Trump has you all upset. I posted the link because it was the first one that came up. Well, after Wikipedia from Fudd.
I'm just glad you didn't tear an ACL dodging all the posts about how incompetent your libtard party is. Good to see you at full strength.
How many convictions so far? We still waiting on the Russian collusion? How about his taxes? Stormy?
What's the next witch hunt going to be? Taking bribes from other countries? OH WAIT!
Come clean, Papa... how much does it piss you off Trump was 1000 times better than JoeTato?
Where's Husker Du?
Why should he? You didn't read the article of "climate change deniers" you posted that literally said nobody on the list denies climate change.
Fudd probably had to request a new password.
You can see the changes in satellite images.
Giant silt plumes off of Greenland where the newly swollen rivers are dumping glacial melt.
Same image from 1975? No silt plumes.
Same thing for pack ice. 1973 image, ice. 2023 image, open water.
Same thing for peak temperatures. Hottest year on record. Still the hottest year on record if you ignore urban monitoring sites.
Not really theory at this point. Just two well documented trends, one for CO2 and one for temperature.
But you want to pretend that there are thousands of well qualified climate skeptics who just can't get published.
They don't exist. This is why you bring up unqualified loons like Lomborg. He doesn't even have a science degree. But you think he's an expert, because he tells you what you want to hear.
Desert Hound
DA
I did read that he believes in climate change. He also stated that the publishers will not allow him to point out that most wildfires are not caused by climate change...but rather are started by humans. This contradicts the story line we hear so often that makes it sound like things are getting worse rapidly.
He also points out that people cannot write on other topics if it goes against the gov position.
So what you end up with is not getting a complete picture of what is going on. You are being feed propaganda essentially since only one point of view is allowed.
That central concept of his whole article just breezed right by you. Per usual.
Go against the gov, or the popular academic opinion. This is common culture in academia/science. For example, it is well understood that you write a college paper, not based upon your opinion, but based upon what will please your professor and is consistent with their opinion.
You see it even more these days with the cancelling or shouting down of college speakers who present opposing opinions. Science is just an extension of academia.
Desert Hound
DA
You miss the point again.
The climate is always changing. Always has. We are coming out of a little ice age. We expect the temps to get warmer.
The planet has always had wild variations. It has been much colder and of course much warmer.
This is normal. The planet adjusts.
The theory is that somehow this time it is different. And that not only is it different but will be catastrophic.
That is the hard part. We have had changes for millions of years. It is normal. But now we are expected to believe that this time it is different and will be catastrophic. That is a high bar to cross and many scientists do not believe that warming will be catastrophic. Many point out that in the past when the earth was warmer life thrived.
So before we started turning over control of our economy and lives to bureaucrats and politicians and restrict what we do, I want a healthy dialog in research journals, etc. I want to see models that actually work well. They do not yet.
You on the other hand clearly want to restrict information to your preferred narrative...just like you did in Covid. You were constantly denigrating those you disagreed with. Ionnidas (spelling) at Stanford basically nailed it at the start. You discounted him because he was not in the profession of studying viruses. Last time I checked there were all kinds of scientists and politicians telling us what to do with regard to Covid that had zero education in viruses. You liked them however because you believed in what they told you.
You should be more skeptical in life about the consensus that is pushed on us by gov and media and one that does its best to stifle the voices of those that disagree. If the theory is robust and true they should welcome the dialog. Instead they work to shut it down. There is an agenda.
NEW: 2024 College Free Speech Rankings show alarming 81% success rate of deplatforming attempts at nation’s most censorial schools
Students entering college this fall can expect a culture of conformity and censorship according to a new FIRE survey of more than 55,000 students across the country shows that most attend colleges that don’t value free expression.
Harvard gets worst score ever in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings
Harvard has never performed well in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings, finishing below 75% of the schools surveyed in each of the past four years.
Desert Hound
DA
Here is an interesting vid to watch.
Was provost at Cal Tech. Undergraduate from that school. PHD from MIT.
Undersecretary for science in the Obama admin.
A lot of scientists feel the way he does.
A recent example is 2022 Nobel Prize winner in Physics John Clauser.
dad just doesnt hear about them because they dont get promoted the same way as pro climate change activists do. So they are off his radar and he is completely unaware of what their arguments might be.
Below is a video from Steven Koonin. The Cal Tech/MIT guy.
Was provost at Cal Tech. Undergraduate from that school. PHD from MIT.
Undersecretary for science in the Obama admin.
A lot of scientists feel the way he does.
A recent example is 2022 Nobel Prize winner in Physics John Clauser.
dad just doesnt hear about them because they dont get promoted the same way as pro climate change activists do. So they are off his radar and he is completely unaware of what their arguments might be.
Below is a video from Steven Koonin. The Cal Tech/MIT guy.
Follow the bribes Hound
This discussion is getting pretty funny.
Meanwhile, back in the real world --
Meanwhile, back in the real world --
Last edited:
The central concept of the article does not support your position.
Brown is right that review boards are, in some cases, reluctant to publish. He is talking about whether to include a side topic (who lights forest fires) that might detract from the main point (climate change seems to be making the fires worse).
The question is whether to discuss the fact that climate related disasters are also impacted by other factors. Brown says yes, and he is right.
What Brown is not doing is advocating for publication of climate skeptics. Nowhere is the article does he mention skeptics, and it is a misreading on your part to imply that he did.
We interrupt the Weather & Climate Channel with Breaking News:
Elon just post a "X" marks the spot on his twitter. Wowza folks. I told you guys that someone scheduling pizza for one hour and buying $65,000 worth of hot dogs is insane. It's all coming out.
Elon just post a "X" marks the spot on his twitter. Wowza folks. I told you guys that someone scheduling pizza for one hour and buying $65,000 worth of hot dogs is insane. It's all coming out.
Many of these discussions in the past have looped around the same way -- the climate denial camp presents some supposed support for their view that turns out on closer examination not to be what they claim. Interestingly, almost all of these examples presented by the deniers who complain about publication restrictions end up in good-paying positions on foundations that let them publish what they want. The latest example is Dr. Clauser, who is now on the board of the CO2 Coalition. Those interested can find out more about that group here --
CO2 Coalition - Wikipedia
Again, I've YET to hear anyone deny climate change... including anyone here. What do you propose we do?
Desert Hound
DA
I would recommend dad and espola...and to be honest everyone take a look at this video.
Richard Lindzen well respected climatologist from MIT.
He explains a lot of the problems with the manmade global warming theory.
I suspect neither dad or espola will watch this or the other video. Info that cuts against what they believe. This one is more interesting vs the first.
Richard Lindzen well respected climatologist from MIT.
He explains a lot of the problems with the manmade global warming theory.
I suspect neither dad or espola will watch this or the other video. Info that cuts against what they believe. This one is more interesting vs the first.