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

[sk47]

I’m all for a debate as to what, if anything should be done about it, provided that the people involved in the debate actually understand the cause and the consequences.

If you understand the consequences and decide that it doesn’t bother you, that’s fine. Each of us has a choice to make. But, to deny that there’s a problem, or how that problem is coming about, and then demanding that people listen to THAT point of view, well…..that’s just ridiculous.

That was the intention of the thread. To highlight the fact that many people simply don’t understand the proposition, and until they do, no right-minded government has any business listening to their opinions, or more specificall, their opinions that aren’t backed by the evidence.


i agree. Now go ask the US government why your coal fired power stations are so far behind the rest of the world…… or did you not read the link I shared earlier?

Don’t panic, Australia is a fucking disaster too. I’m not taking cheap shots here. In fact, we are probably doing worse than you guys (depending on the metrics being employed)

Hello; This post of yours is very telling. You're all for debate if you can set the standards to suit what you find favorable.

It will boil down to anyone who disagrees with you must not be able to "understand" as you do so those folks will be disregarded.
It will also be that governments have the obligation to dismiss their citizens views if those citizens do not buy into your self approved sources of evidence. Talk about a rigged debate that would be.

I will in my next post try for the third time to pin you down with an answer on an important point. You have ignored this particular point at least two and maybe three times. Hint it will be about your per-capita stance.

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

Hello; Burkey has a few times made the point that China has four times the population of the USA. That if it is looked at in a per-capita manner then China is not as bad a polluter as the USA.

Among the important fact is this one. China's emissions are right this minute greater than the USA's emissions.

My question follows the per-capita logic he has favored. If China is allowed to increase personal pollution to the point of being equal to the individual personal per-capita emissions of the USA, then such will increase the total emissions of China by at least four time over todays amount will it not?

 

[K4fxd]

You need to provide actual data to back up your bold claim rather than just the usual 'I know better' comments

https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/resources/lithium_batteries/media/Battery_incident_chart.pdf

https://theloadstar.com/latest-freighter-fire-prompts-new-questions-on-lithium-battery-safety/

" Lithium ion and lithium metal batteries are prohibited on passenger aircraft, and there are strict rules on their carriage on freighters. But there have been problems with undeclared counterfeit batteries, poor packaging and mis-declared batteries."

If you need more evidence just use Google.

 

[Burkey]

You're all for debate if you can set the standards to suit what you find favorable.

Its not what I find “favourable”….hell, I’d prefer to think it wasn’t happening.
The “standard” I’m applying is the scientific consensus. Eg. That which is reported in respected peer reviewed journals.
As a former science teacher, it’s disgraceful that you think you can get your info from MSN.

If we apply your standard, we will need to listen to the flat-earthers, the YECS, the anti-vaxxers and the expanding Earth brigade, along with the anti-evolutionists, crystal therapy wankers and just about any old clap-trap you can think of.
Did I mention geo-centrists? What about the breatharians?
Where exactly do you want this stupidity to stop?

will in my next post try for the third time to pin you down with an answer on an important point. You have ignored this particular point at least two and maybe three times. Hint it will be about your per-capita stance.

I’m pretty sure I’ve repeatedly made my stance pretty clear on this one. Perhaps your inability to understand what I’ve said is the issue?

 

[Burkey]

https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/resources/lithium_batteries/media/Battery_incident_chart.pdf

https://theloadstar.com/latest-freighter-fire-prompts-new-questions-on-lithium-battery-safety/

" Lithium ion and lithium metal batteries are prohibited on passenger aircraft, and there are strict rules on their carriage on freighters. But there have been problems with undeclared counterfeit batteries, poor packaging and mis-declared batteries."

If you need more evidence just use Google.

I think you meant “large quantities” of these batteries.
Otherwise, every IPhone would be confiscated before departure.

 

[Burkey]

If the monetary incentives were taken out of climate change we would see the real science. For now climate change in my opinion is exploited for profit, power, and control.

Can you demonstrate a practical example (or examples) of a scientist/scientists who are climate science proponents, whose work has been compromised by “financial incentives”? From what I’ve seen, there’s a lot more money in going down the Willie Soon route, not so much in conducting actual scientific research.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Burkey has a few times made the point that China has four times the population of the USA. That if it is looked at in a per-capita manner then China is not as bad a polluter as the USA.

Among the important fact is this one. China's emissions are right this minute greater than the USA's emissions.

My question follows the per-capita logic he has favored. If China is allowed to increase personal pollution to the point of being equal to the individual personal per-capita emissions of the USA, then such will increase the total emissions of China by at least four time over todays amount will it not?

1. Your math is wrong. If China went with the same levels per capita as the US, their contribution would double, not quadruple.

“In terms of CO2 emissions per capita, China is ranked only ranked 47th, at 7.5 metric tonnes per capita. The US is ranked 11th at 16.5 per capita and amongst countries with sizeable populations, has the highest CO2 emissions per capita.”

2. I’m not advocating for China to double their emissions.
I‘m advocating for ALL countries to LOWER their emissions.
You can start pointing fingers at China once you’ve halved yours. Sound fair?

As I stated earlier, I’m not throwing stones at the US. Australia is also doing a dismal job. I expected better from the Canadians though if we’re being totally honest.

3. I don’t know why you take issue with the per capita figure. If were to use your metric, Lichtenstein would be allowed to produce as much as the US, despite having only 38,000 people.
Genius solution. Sheer brilliance.

 

[CEHollier]

Can you demonstrate a practical example (or examples) of a scientist/scientists who are climate science proponents, whose work has been compromised by “financial incentives”? From what I’ve seen, there’s a lot more money in going down the Willie Soon route, not so much in conducting actual scientific research.

The majority of academia working on climate change get their funding from the federal government/private foundations. This article is one example of the problem. Any person from the scientific community who challenges or sets to disprove global warming/climate change is attacked. Especially for accepting money from utility/traditional energy companies. They are discredited because of where their money comes from. Never mind the billions of dollars pro climate change organizations pump into the scientific/academic community. And no one challenges this. Those people who speak up when flaws are found in pro climate change research are attacked viciously. This double standard is not beneficial to science. It's akin to the Catholic church vs Galileo. https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/02/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne/

 

[Burkey]

The majority of academia working on climate change get their funding from the federal government/private foundations. This article is one example of the problem. Any person from the scientific community who challenges or sets to disprove global warming/climate change is attacked. Especially for accepting money from utility/traditional energy companies. They are discredited because of where their money comes from. Never mind the billions of dollars pro climate change organizations pump into the scientific/academic community. And no one challenges this. Those people who speak up when flaws are found in pro climate change research are attacked viciously. This double standard. is not beneficial to science. It's akin to the Catholic church vs Galileo. https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/02/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne/

I’m not even finished the first paragraph and I already know it’s going to be a crock of shit.
How? Because Soon was discredited on the basis that the work he did for the oil companies was FAULTY. It had NOTHING to do with the source of his funding. Not a damned thing. The fact that he FAILED to discolse the source/s of his funding, as he is obliged to do, was simply another failure of Soons.

So, that’s one example your article just failed on…let’s continue…

 

[CEHollier]

John Coleman the founder of The Weather Channel's opinion on gl

I’m not even finished the first paragraph and I already know it’s going to be a crock of shit.
How? Because Soon was discredited on the basis that the work he did for the oil companies was FAULTY. It had NOTHING to do with the source of his funding. Not a damned thing. The fact that he FAILED to discolse the source/s of his funding, as he is obliged to do, was simply another failure of Soons.

So, that’s one example your article just failed on…let’s continue…

Then you for proving sk47 correct. We are done.

 

[Burkey]

The majority of academia working on climate change get their funding from the federal government/private foundations. This article is one example of the problem. Any person from the scientific community who challenges or sets to disprove global warming/climate change is attacked. Especially for accepting money from utility/traditional energy companies. They are discredited because of where their money comes from. Never mind the billions of dollars pro climate change organizations pump into the scientific/academic community. And no one challenges this. Those people who speak up when flaws are found in pro climate change research are attacked viciously. This double standard is not beneficial to science. It's akin to the Catholic church vs Galileo. https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/02/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne/

Second paragraph…
I‘ll break it down for you.
”In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations.”

Read: The majority of the funding comes from GOVERNMENTS ACROSS THE GLOBE, most of whom don’t want climate change to be a thing, yet they conto us to fund it because there is no competing theory and the research MUST take place regardoes of global warming or none.

“And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate (It’s not a debate in science, and the energy companies don’t fund “both sides”….) the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda.“

AKA, they pay scientists to collect data. All kinds of data. That data continually shows what we already know to be true.

“With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.”

Yeah, cos research scientists across the globe, collecting lower wages than a decent tradesman, are absouletly making sure that their research aligns with everything that’s already known…cos that’s a good way to get more funding…
Have you ever applied for a grant to conduct research? It seems that you haven’t.

Should I continue or has the pint been made yet?

 

[Burkey]

John Coleman the founder of The Weather Channel's opinion on gl


Then you for proving sk47 correct. We are done.

Oh wow. A meteorologist.
I‘ll make sure to look out for his submissions for peer review. I mean, if he believes it, he MUST be able to prove it right?

 

[Super-Genius]

Second paragraph…
I‘ll break it down for you.
”In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations.”

Read: The majority of the funding comes from GOVERNMENTS ACROSS THE GLOBE, most of whom don’t want climate change to be a thing, yet they conto us to fund it because there is no competing theory and the research MUST take place regardoes of global warming or none.

“And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate (It’s not a debate in science, and the energy companies don’t fund “both sides”….) the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda.“

AKA, they pay scientists to collect data. All kinds of data. That data continually shows what we already know to be true.

“With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.”

Yeah, cos research scientists across the globe, collecting lower wages than a decent tradesman, are absouletly making sure that their research aligns with everything that’s already known…cos that’s a good way to get more funding…
Have you ever applied for a grant to conduct research? It seems that you haven’t.

Should I continue or has the pint been made yet?

Dude, the National Review is right up there with Newsmax. Lol. That's all you really need to know.

 

[Burkey]

Dude, the National Review is right up there with Newsmax. Lol. That's all you really need to know.

Yeah, that’s where I go when I want reliable scientific information.
The thread was titled “science is cancelled” and it‘s become quite obvious that half the people here don’t have a damn clue how science even works.
Explains why it’s cancelled I suppose.

 

[sk47]

John Coleman the founder of The Weather Channel's opinion on gl


Then you for proving sk47 correct. We are done.

Hello; Thanks for posting the video. Took over half an hour but worth the time. I will try my self to find one of his graphs in particular. The one with what he called the "spaggetti" (SP) of climate models and had the actual temps overlaid. That particular graph tells several stories.

The 4.7 billion dollars per year as a motivation was stark information.

Sponsored