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

[Gregs24]

THose that do their own research on subject matter will see that science shows a 182 year warming and cooling cycle that has happened over and over and over again.

Maybe if you have done the research you could provide me with the data on this and also why the sudden uptick in temperature in the last 50 years or so ?

I'm sure you will have seen this graph - could you explain it to me please?

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

Would you like to enlighten the class on why the earth warms to higher temps than we are projected to be at by 2050 ,When man was still using donkeys and horses, you know before industrial age.

This one cracks me up.
Ok, so horses and donkeys were domesticated roughly 6,000 years ago. Tell you what, I’ll give you an extra 4,000 years on top.
Show me on the chart where the global average temp was higher?
Now take a moment to think about a little thing called “Milankovitch cycles” and get back to me when you’ve worked out where we are in this cycles right now.

Actually, screw it. I’ll tell you because you’ll undoubtedly do the research wrong.
The answer is that the cycle was at it’s peak 8,700 years ago (the Earth should’ve been hotter than right now). We are currently in the “middle” phase, and the opposite “peak” will occur around 9,800 years from now.

So yes, the planet SHOULD be cooler right now than it was 8,700 years ago, but it’s not. I wonder why….

With any luck, you may have just learned something.

 

[Gregs24]

WRONG, but you seem to be great at ASSUMING.
So, reply.

Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Climate science denial | The Guardian

Maybe some of the money is working the other way to what you suggest.

 

[ICU812]

Now post a graph of the last 300+ years. instead of taking a "bite" That shows your stance because it is out of context.
I can select what I want and omitt what I don't want to show also.
You should do your part and sell your mustang, and cut of the power to your living quarters, and stop heating and cooling it.
Then get a petal bike.

 

[Burkey]

Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Climate science denial | The Guardian

Maybe some of the money is working the other way to what you suggest.

Wait…are you saying that the companies that want to continue to sell their product might actually be investing in disinformation campaigns, just like the tobacco companies did? That can’t be right. Why would they do that?

 

[Gregs24]

WRONG, but you seem to be great at ASSUMING.
So, reply.

By the way you never answered - you say 'science' like it is a single topic. I'll copy my post and question below

Do you read scientific papers ? Do you read the list of conflicting interests and who has funded the research, it is all there to help you decide if it is a factor.

Leaving out facts and poor scientific method are very rapidly uncovered during the peer review process and by others reading the published article. I know how rigorous this is having published work, the bar is very high.

This blanket condemnation of all scientific research is somewhat at odds with reality in a world where medicines work, planes fly and bridges don't fall down. Or are you just going to cherry pick your condemnation to those areas that you have strong opinions on?

For example do you consider the following to be biased and what narrative is being followed ? (picked at random)

Method Research of Earthquake Prediction and Volcano Prediction in Italy (scirp.org)

 

[Gregs24]

Wait…are you saying that the companies that want to continue to sell their product might actually be investing in disinformation campaigns, just like the tobacco companies did? That can’t be right. Why would they do that?

Hadn't thought of that, you might be on to something!

 

[Gregs24]

Now post a graph of the last 300+ years. instead of taking a "bite" That shows your stance because it is out of context.
I can select what I want and omitt what I don't want to show also.
You should do your part and sell your mustang, and cut of the power to your living quarters, and stop heating and cooling it.
Then get a petal bike.

I did - see the second graph. I'm still waiting for the explanation. Surely you must have covered this in your research ?

 

[Burkey]

Now post a graph of the last 300+ years. instead of taking a "bite" That shows your stance because it is out of context.
I can select what I want and omitt what I don't want to show also.
You should do your part and sell your mustang, and cut of the power to your living quarters, and stop heating and cooling it.
Then get a petal bike.

Ok, so you’ve decided to change the time period when the data didn’t suit your premise……it’s familiar tactic.
So you just want to ignore the past 10,000 years because it’s inconvenient?
Ok, lets do the past 300 years…See chart below. Yes, it’s the past 2,000 years but I don’t think your 300 year shit works the way you want it to..

Oh, I’m doing my part by trying to educate fuckwits like you. It’s a very real challenge, but maybe it would be worth it. No point in me selling my car if idiots like you are going to continue doing what you do, is there?

 

[sk47]

I find it ironic that when anyone posts a link to a right leaning org. the triplets jump on the source and claim bias. Yet, at the same time they link to left biased sources, like the guardian.

From google

The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion, and its reputation as a platform for social liberal and left-wing editorial has led to the use of "Guardian reader" and "Guardianista" as often-pejorative epithets for those of left-leaning or "politically correct" tendencies.

Hello; An interesting aspect of the back and forth on this site is what you point out. I posted two links recently. One mostly about how China is not actually going green any time soon. Posted that several days ago. Not a peep about that very telling information so far. I posted a link a few days later and the source gets two immediate critics, with one critic even saying the link was not read.
Here is an interesting thing to me. If you look at the two links and focus on information about China, then both have similar content.
It would seem even right wing sources van come close to getting things correctly. It can take a while for supporting information to come along. Our fellow member who has in the past gone to lengths to put down the USA and champion China has been silent on that lately. Not sure if he will get back to supporting China later on.

I do not write the articles I post as links. Could be a link has bias. Most every one does. The bias will not automatically mean the information is wrong.

Anyway I would have found it of value had the links been compared to see if the information matched up well. China would have been the thing to look at as it was part of both links. That did not happen.

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; An interesting aspect of the back and forth on this site is what you point out. I posted two links recently. One mostly about how China is not actually going green any time soon. Posted that several days ago. Not a peep about that very telling information so far. I posted a link a few days later and the source gets two immediate critics, with one critic even saying the link was not read.
Here is an interesting thing to me. If you look at the two links and focus on information about China, then both have similar content.
It would seem even right wing sources van come close to getting things correctly. It can take a while for supporting information to come along. Our fellow member who has in the past gone to lengths to put down the USA and champion China has been silent on that lately. Not sure if he will get back to supporting China later on.

I do not write the articles I post as links. Could be a link has bias. Most every one does. The bias will not automatically mean the information is wrong.

Anyway I would have found it of value had the links been compared to see if the information matched up well. China would have been the thing to look at as it was part of both links. That did not happen.

China (and India) clearly have problems in their energy generation reliance on coal.

Looks like some progress is to be made

Finance firms plan to close coal plants in Asia - BBC News

 

[Gregs24]

It could be that this thread has run it's course. Some would say that happened on post number 3!

There are clearly those who will never change their minds no matter what evidence is provided, and some just look for similar opinions to their own to reinforce their beliefs. Extremists of any kind are rarely right. I have always provided evidence for my posts (not opinion pieces in general) which has not always been reciprocated by some on here who just post the same stuff over and over again with nothing to actually back up their opinions. That then becomes pointless as it is not a discussion. Today is a perfect example where one person, despite 'doing his research' seems not able to respond with anything that backs up his comments. I'm not sure why anybody should take comments seriously in those circumstances.

Anyway for me this is just fizzling out now and I can see no reason to have the same pointless discussions over and over again. You all know where I stand (and the evidence I have provided) and I await further evidence.

 

[sk47]

China (and India) clearly have problems in their energy generation reliance on coal.

Looks like some progress is to be made

Finance firms plan to close coal plants in Asia - BBC News

Hello; You answered a question not asked. No doubt China is continuing with coal in a big way. The question is how was the link you and others condemned because of the source wrong about China. Specifically as I recall the most recent link went on about China's pollution levels. Seems even the link panned as being biased made the call correctly about China.

Hello; The link you provided had nothing to do with China or India. Neither was mentioned. Nice try tho.

 

[Burkey]

It could be that this thread has run it's course. Some would say that happened on post number 3!

There are clearly those who will never change their minds no matter what evidence is provided, and some just look for similar opinions to their own to reinforce their beliefs. Extremists of any kind are rarely right. I have always provided evidence for my posts (not opinion pieces in general) which has not always been reciprocated by some on here who just post the same stuff over and over again with nothing to actually back up their opinions. That then becomes pointless as it is not a discussion. Today is a perfect example where one person, despite 'doing his research' seems not able to respond with anything that backs up his comments. I'm not sure why anybody should take comments seriously in those circumstances.

Anyway for me this is just fizzling out now and I can see no reason to have the same pointless discussions over and over again. You all know where I stand (and the evidence I have provided) and I await further evidence.

I tend to agree. No amount of evidence or accompanying explanation will be sufficient for those who want to cling to what they prefer to believe.
Science is cancelled indeed.

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; You answered a question not asked. No doubt China is continuing with coal in a big way. The question is how was the link you and others condemned because of the source wrong about China. Specifically as I recall the most recent link went on about China's pollution levels. Seems even the link panned as being biased made the call correctly about China.

Hello; The link you provided had nothing to do with China or India. Neither was mentioned. Nice try tho.

'Nice try tho' - try at what? I posted a link - did I mention the link was about China or India? Suggesting I was deflecting from something?

The links you posted are some time ago and I'm not going to dig back to find them. Repost if you like.

Sponsored