Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[Redeemer]

I’m saying that a person can use google SCHOLAR in order to find actual scientific literature, published in respected, peer-reviewed journals, rather than finding whatever it is that they want to find that fits their agenda, regardless of what that might be.
Alternatively, they can rely on any of the various scientific academies to report the information in lay-speak.
What they shouldn’t be doing is relying on media reports, bloggers and politicians.

I agree with this 100% but am glad for the clarification. The average person Googling any topic is going to get about 10K misinformed results (by design, and yes I can speak with authority on this because this is my industry and I work closely with some of their engineers) before finding something fact or evidence based, ultimately being left with the seed of an opinion forming that they didn't know they even had, and it will in short order become fact in their minds. For the folks that are Beta+ or higher, there may just be confusion or frustration leading them to give up their search. The gammas and epsilons just as Alexa....

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

Lets forget the fervor for a sec though and examine the reality. This goes beyond climate science and pretty much encompasses EVERYTHING any government touches, and increases the fraud by orders of magnitude when you involve the UN. When the people creating the computer model (Not limited to climate science) have a vested interest in the outcome, you automatically have a conflict of interest and have to throw all of their data away. It is biased and useless.

I wish this weren't the case. I wish the propaganda about the UN being this great united global benevolent body were true but it is simply a lie. Just like the vast majority of manipulated "studies" you are citing. It is a fantasy, designed to make you feel personally responsible, and to guilt you into giving up freedoms.

You (and many of the global warming alarmists I deal with) seem very intelligent. The problem is, you think governments have your best interests at heart. They don't. You have been conditioned to trust the "experts" but in many cases they aren't experts at all. They are indoctrinated useful idiots who actually believe the lies and garbage they are asking you to swallow as well.

We could argue this specific topic for days and make no progress convincing one another. Often times the alarmists present what appear to be very well thought out arguments, backed by research, but I'm sorry, you simply HAVE to follow the money. The money, and the social control are what this is truly about. The obscene sums of money so many institutions, governments, corporations, and individuals stand to make off of forcing this hoax down our throats trumps any scientific argument on either side of the coin. Until you at least factor that variable into your trove of data, you can't tae an honest and accurate position. It is simply a denial of reality.

Ok. I get it. You don’t trust anyone. That’s cool.
You don’t have to. There is that which is proven and supported but the EVIDENCE (data) and that which is not.

If you want to object to the data, go find your own data. PROVE THEM WRONG instead of asserting that it MUST be wrong because you think it must be.

Surely you’ve noticed that the objections coming from this page specifically and the broader public more generally aren’t targeted at the actual scientific literature, but instead at various proclamations that people THINK was published in the literature?


If you want to argue that the suns output (for example) has varied by more than x watts per square metre over the period of y, go for it. Collect the data, interpret it, forward it for peer-review and find out if your assertions are correct.

It‘s either that or just accept that the current body of knowledge is as accurate as it can possibly be at this given moment in time.

If you want to argue science, argue science.
Not ideology, not conspiracy theories, not a misunderstanding of that which has already been reported and accepted by those who can actually”y interpret it and added it as part of our knowledge on the topic, until such time that new information comes to light.

If you want to argue ideology or conspiracy theories, I don’t have time for it.
Even if the UN were shown to be the most corrupt organisation ever assembled in human history, it does nothing to disprove the SCIENCE. Not a damn thing.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; As you have already figured out we are talking to a few true believers. There is nothing can be done to change their point of view. If I find links showing flaws in the models which they have faith in, then to them it does not matter about the flaws or that the models have missed several predictions already. Among their answers is that no model is perfect and so what if a model is off by 10% currently, they still feel the models will be correct in 50 years. In my world view a predictive tool which is off by 10% is a big error rate. A 10% error will be magnified over time and decades from now will not be accurate.

Another way they work it is to reject any sources we can come up with which does not help their cause. They will accept only some sources. I did manage to slow them down a bit with a recent link. One of them objected to it and it turned out to be from a legit source. ( the link to how CO2 maybe causing warming at a lesser rate) That was where one of them stated that even a 10% error rate ought not to be a big deal the way I read the comeback.

K4fxd has good points with the Michel C book. I am not sure if I have read that one but will if I can find it. That some information is censored from the web search sites is important. Control the information and control the meanings of words and terms seems to be part of the playbook.

I do not post with the notion of having any influence on the true believers. They approach this issue much like it's a religion. So the point for me is those who follow the thread without making comments. I try to keep it above the petty name calling although I do take a small jab from time to time. I hope to present some logical and thought out comments. After all we are being pushed into a serious lifestyle change.

Warming of the planet can have some serious consequences and best I can determine there is some of it we will have to endure regardless of what gets done. I have found at least one source suggesting the CO2 effect is less than we have been led to believe. If true this will give us some more time. I think the 2030 year ban on ICE is too extreme.
I think the move to do away with all fossil fuels is not only too extreme but purely foolish. It is understood that as many as two billion people have food because of the fertilizer made from natural gas. We went to an industrial style of agriculture some time back. We are at a population level two billion people above what the earth can feed using older farming tech. To turn around all the equipment needed to feed the people of the world by 2035 is just not practical and this does not get into power generation at all.

I could make do with an EV. Make do but not like it. I also suspect there are kinks yet to be worked out. After all it appears about 20% of EV owners went back to an ICE. And yes I am against some of the change in lifestyle simply because it is being forced onto us. I cannot defend that part of my viewpoint in an absolutely practical way, but there are some inherent issues with an EV that make it a questionable mass transportation device. May be we are going to trade one form of energy source with some problems for another source of energy with it's own set of problems and it may not be all that green.

Last bit today. Follow the money. I will keep posting links about the money. Best i can tell so far is something like six trillion US dollars is on the table is some form or another. But that is for another day.

You have yet to produce a single chart that shows a faulty model that has been used to advise government policy.
Again I tell you, provide the evidence or sit back down.
For clarity, I’m asking you to provide a chart, not someone CLAIMING the models are faulty.

 

[Burkey]

I agree with this 100% but am glad for the clarification. The average person Googling any topic is going to get about 10K misinformed results (by design, and yes I can speak with authority on this because this is my industry and I work closely with some of their engineers) before finding something fact or evidence based, ultimately being left with the seed of an opinion forming that they didn't know they even had, and it will in short order become fact in their minds. For the folks that are Beta+ or higher, there may just be confusion or frustration leading them to give up their search. The gammas and epsilons just as Alexa....

I appreciate your intellectual honesty. Seriously.
Cheers.

 

[Redeemer]

So this is a bit of a side bar but I am curious, and no, haven't done any research but do we know why there were only 5K polar bears estimated to be living in the 1950's? I would assume they were hunted by the 2 legged apex predator but I mean, 5K is nearly extinct. The recovery numbers look like a step in the right direction but still far below what I would have guessed the average population size should be.

 

[Redeemer]

You have yet to produce a single chart that shows a faulty model that has been used to advise government policy.
Again I tell you, provide the evidence or sit back down.
For clarity, I’m asking you to provide a chart, not someone CLAIMING the models are faulty.

I don't think he needs to "sit back down" because what good will it do to provide a chart? If you accept the fact hat the science and data are manipulated by powerful entities to advance an agenda, then all of the charts they produce and papers they write are suspect. The sad reality is that he deck is stacked against the reality of the situation, and those who are skeptical because of the systemic fraud inherent in these institutions, all of whom stand to gain by keeping you ignorant with fake facts that play off of your emotions.

 

[Redeemer]

I appreciate your intellectual honesty. Seriously.
Cheers.

Thank you, very much. I appreciate yours as well. At the end of the day, I like knowing I can disagree with someone, vehemently at times, and argue with them, ultimately coming to no resolution of change of heart on either side, yet still respect that person for what they bring to the argument.

I normally don't engage in these kinds of discussions, and never thought I would do so on a muscle car forum, but hey, whether with me or against me, the replies have been spirited and respectful. I've enjoyed the conversation.

 

[Redeemer]

Ok. I get it. You don’t trust anyone. That’s cool.
You don’t have to. There is that which is proven and supported but the EVIDENCE (data) and that which is not.

If you want to object to the data, go find your own data. PROVE THEM WRONG instead of asserting that it MUST be wrong because you think it must be.

Surely you’ve noticed that the objections coming from this page specifically and the broader public more generally aren’t targeted at the actual scientific literature, but instead at various proclamations that people THINK was published in the literature?


If you want to argue that the suns output (for example) has varied by more than x watts per square metre over the period of y, go for it. Collect the data, interpret it, forward it for peer-review and find out if your assertions are correct.

It‘s either that or just accept that the current body of knowledge is as accurate as it can possibly be at this given moment in time.

If you want to argue science, argue science.
Not ideology, not conspiracy theories, not a misunderstanding of that which has already been reported and accepted by those who can actually”y interpret it and added it as part of our knowledge on the topic, until such time that new information comes to light.

If you want to argue ideology or conspiracy theories, I don’t have time for it.
Even if the UN were shown to be the most corrupt organisation ever assembled in human history, it does nothing to disprove the SCIENCE. Not a damn thing.

To quote the creepy ass pedo that was installed in the White House like a crappy re-manufactured Duralast alternator "C'mon man!". What you are asking me to do, I simply cannot do, for 2 reasons. 1. I am not a scientist, and I'm not smart enough to deeply interpret the data coming out of either side, so I do have to apply common sense to fill in the gaps. 2. And this is much more important, I have seen the lies coming from both sides of the political aisle. Neither side even tries to hide them anymore and all but the most moronic can see and accept that to be the reality. So both sides have their puppets, both sides have their fake data, and it comes to a point where i have to let my feelings and my ideology take the wheel for a bit. I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am a realist. I see the world around me, and I observe what is going on. Common sense (Which we all know to be pretty rare these days) dictates that the vast majority of what I read, see, hear and am told is utter bullshit. I don't WANT to be cynical, but it is a defense mechanism against going insane due to the onslaught of lies and propaganda that most Americans gladly eat when they strap on the disinformation feedbag that they seem to enjoy with such relish.

 

[Burkey]

I don't think he needs to "sit back down" because what good will it do to provide a chart? If you accept the fact hat the science and data are manipulated by powerful entities to advance an agenda, then all of the charts they produce and papers they write are suspect. The sad reality is that he deck is stacked against the reality of the situation, and those who are skeptical because of the systemic fraud inherent in these institutions, all of whom stand to gain by keeping you ignorant with fake facts that play off of your emotions.

That’s the point though. If you can’t provide the evidence that backs your assertions, why should we care?
There is almost nothing that can’t be believed on faith alone and it gets us no closer to the truth.
I don’t bother debating against conspiracy theories because no amount of evidence can prove it wrong.
A court doesn’t find people innocent. It finds them not guilty. It isn’t the same thing.
Ergo, if you want to assume the data is corrupt, no amount of evidence will ever prove otherwise because ALL data that attempts to prove it, is also “corrupt”.

It’s a pointless endeavour. I might be a glutton for punishment, but I’m just not THAT gluttonous.

 

[sk47]

I don't think he needs to "sit back down" because what good will it do to provide a chart? If you accept the fact hat the science and data are manipulated by powerful entities to advance an agenda, then all of the charts they produce and papers they write are suspect. The sad reality is that he deck is stacked against the reality of the situation, and those who are skeptical because of the systemic fraud inherent in these institutions, all of whom stand to gain by keeping you ignorant with fake facts that play off of your emotions.

Hello; I take it you plan to wade thru this thread. I figure you will find at least a few common themes. I or others can make comments or points and he will come back with the same sort of request.
I had begun to suspect the deck is stacked as far as searches went. I will look into the google scholar to see how that works. My skills in scientific searching was back in the 60's, 70's and 80's. During my undergrad years I had a part time work/study job in a university library. I worked in the periodical research area. My job was to assist students in finding current articles for their papers. Of course I used the skill to do my own searches. All that is gone now.

I knew there must be a way to get at the more pure science stuff but had no idea how to do it.

 

[Redeemer]

That’s the point though. If you can’t provide the evidence that backs your assertions, why should we care?
There is almost nothing that can’t be believed on faith alone and it gets us no closer to the truth.
I don’t bother debating against conspiracy theories because no amount of evidence can prove it wrong.
A court doesn’t find people innocent. It finds them not guilty. It isn’t the same thing.
Ergo, if you want to assume the data is corrupt, no amount of evidence will ever prove otherwise because ALL data that attempts to prove it, is also “corrupt”.

It’s a pointless endeavour. I might be a glutton for punishment, but I’m just not THAT gluttonous.

Come on man! Eat a little more. I know you are hungry still. Seriously I take your point, but am to tired to go any deeper. I am not asking anyone to care about what I post here. I just saw an interesting contribution and am adding my opinion. I'm not looking to change heaets and minds, I don't have a treasure trove of links to offer to back up my opinion. I can say, I've read thousands or pages of studies and arguments from both sides, and well by now you know which side I put more stock in.
I'm just enjoying the conversation, and will leave the citation and data validation to smarter folks than myself. I have a blown serpentine belt to fix tomorrow so I can get back to burning up them recycled dinosaurs sooner rather than later.

Cheers man!

 

[Gregs24]

J David Bethel
An author of political and psychological thrillers - what a source

 

[Gregs24]

You can copy and paste all you like but I have been ignoring your drivel for a while now

 

[Gregs24]

If you want an unbiased result in your "research" Google is probably the last place you want to go. Just sayin.

Not if you use it properly and understand and scrutinise the source. If you choose to believe politically motivated crap that is your mistake not the search engine

 

[Gregs24]

Come on man! Eat a little more. I know you are hungry still. Seriously I take your point, but am to tired to go any deeper. I am not asking anyone to care about what I post here. I just saw an interesting contribution and am adding my opinion. I'm not looking to change heaets and minds, I don't have a treasure trove of links to offer to back up my opinion. I can say, I've read thousands or pages of studies and arguments from both sides, and well by now you know which side I put more stock in.
I'm just enjoying the conversation, and will leave the citation and data validation to smarter folks than myself. I have a blown serpentine belt to fix tomorrow so I can get back to burning up them recycled dinosaurs sooner rather than later.

Cheers man!

Well make your mind up. One minute Google is biased and untrustworthy and then you say you don't have time to check data and read scientific papers. So your opinion is based on what exactly - daydreams and fairy stories perhaps ?

Sponsored