Austria sues European Union, claiming natural gas and nuclear energy are not 'green'

[Ponderer]

Ponderer & YouTube vs. millions of scientists publishing peer reviewed papers.

I will believe you once you show me that the majority* of climate change papers have been retracted and/or disproved in peer reviewed journals.

Hell -- it doesn't even need to be the majority. I will set the threshold at 10% to start listening to your arguments.

Eyeballing websites and data sets doesn't count.

BTW. how far are you on the 2000 page summary of the science I sent to you?

Are you a scientist and/or do you know any of "the science"?

 

[ForceFate]

Are you a scientist and/or do you know any of "the science"?

Just answer the questions and be done with.

 

[Johand]

Are you a scientist and/or do you know any of "the science"?

No - I leave it to the experts and so should you. I base my opinion on what the majority of the experts say. That is why I do not have substantive arguments around the science, but rather an argument on what the consensus of the experts are.

I remember in varsity we had an statistical exercise to proof that storks bring babies in a country in the northern hemisphere. The point of the exercise was that you need deep understanding of the subject matter and can't look at numbers in isolation - to determine causation rather than correlation takes a lot of detailed knowledge, experience and experiments.

 

[Ponderer]

No - I leave it to the experts and so should you. I base my opinion on what the majority of the experts say. That is why I do not have substantive arguments around the science, but rather an argument on what the consensus of the experts are.

That makes you a regular climate cultist.
I suspected as much.

I remember in varsity we had an statistical exercise to proof that storks bring babies in a country in the northern hemisphere. The point of the exercise was that you need deep understanding of the subject matter and can't look at numbers in isolation - to determine causation rather than correlation takes a lot of detailed knowledge, experience and experiments.

Yeah - you can always trust "the science" and/or "the scientists".
"The science" is never wrong, and you can always safely trust/believe every "scientist".
There is no such thing as "BS/fake/pseudo science".

 

[ToxicBunny]

We as in we climate cultists?

Evidence muthertrucker.. Provide it.

 

[Ponderer]

Evidence muthertrucker.. Provide it.

Calm yourself my little cupcake.

 

[Johand]

That makes you a regular climate cultist.
I suspected as much.

Yeah - you can always trust "the science" and/or "the scientists".
"The science" is never wrong, and you can always safely trust/believe every "scientist".
There is no such thing as "BS/fake/pseudo science".

There is a difference between one or two scientists making mistake/defrauding the public and tens of thousands of people doing research and publishing their work over decades. Not only that, there is a lot of money riding on it so there are real researchers getting paid real money to find holes in the publications and find real scientific evidence against it and publish real rebuttals. The fact that we don't see a lot, and I mean a lot, of rebuttals published in peer review journals funded by oil companies, car companies is a big signpost for me. These companies mostly operate in the public perception domain and not in scientific domain.

There is a lot more money going for climate change being wrong, than there is money going for climate change being right yet scientists still overwhelmingly consider climate change to be real.

I mean if you can somehow believe that there is a conspiracy that involves so many people over such a length of time that is resistant to so much resources to proof them wrong then you need a tin foil hat. Or
two.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Calm yourself my little cupcake.

I'm calm buttercup..

Provide evidence...

 

[Howdy]

There is a difference between one or two scientists making mistake/defrauding the public and tens of thousands of people doing research and publishing their work over decades. Not only that, there is a lot of money riding on it so there are real researchers getting paid real money to find holes in the publications and find real scientific evidence against it and publish real rebuttals. The fact that we don't see a lot, and I mean a lot, of rebuttals published in peer review journals funded by oil companies, car companies is a big signpost for me. These companies mostly operate in the public perception domain and not in scientific domain.

There is a lot more money going for climate change being wrong, than there is money going for climate change being right yet scientists still overwhelmingly consider climate change to be real.

I mean if you can somehow believe that there is a conspiracy that involves so many people over such a length of time that is resistant to so much resources to proof them wrong then you need a tin foil hat. Or
two.

The UN would like a word. Also the folks trading in carbon credits.

Just in: The makers of super glue as well.

 

[Ponderer]

There is a difference between one or two scientists making mistake/defrauding the public and tens of thousands of people doing research and publishing their work over decades. Not only that, there is a lot of money riding on it so there are real researchers getting paid real money to find holes in the publications and find real scientific evidence against it and publish real rebuttals. The fact that we don't see a lot, and I mean a lot, of rebuttals published in peer review journals funded by oil companies, car companies is a big signpost for me. These companies mostly operate in the public perception domain and not in scientific domain.

There is a lot more money going for climate change being wrong, than there is money going for climate change being right yet scientists still overwhelmingly consider climate change to be real.

I mean if you can somehow believe that there is a conspiracy that involves so many people over such a length of time that is resistant to so much resources to proof them wrong then you need a tin foil hat. Or
two.

Like I said.
Your reasoning is that of a regular climate cultist.
You have been brainwashed.

 

[tetrasect]

Scientists: Analyzes millions upon millions of data points covering many facets from surface temperature, water temperature, biomass, atmospheric conditions, water and air densities, glacier coverage etc. etc.

Ponderer: I got a C in woordsomme in Grade 3 and I can watch Youtube of other people that can do Grade 3 Woordsomme. I must be right.

But don't worry! I got you! To get going into the details you can go to scholar.google.com and type in "climate change scientific basis". I do have a two thousand page summary of the different research to get you started! https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf

The guy can't even fathom the greenhouse effect. It's like explaining calculus to a 2 year old.

 

[tetrasect]

A look at Earth's temperature over millennia. Yes, it is warming up, but it did happen before.

And, we are much lower, that almost anytime in history (except Ice Ages).

https://www.science.org/do/10.1126/science.aay1323/full/ancient-temp_drupal.svg

Look at the temperature of the earth millions of years ago when it was inhospitable to humans!

Truly retarded.

 

[tetrasect]

Like I said.
Your reasoning is that of a regular climate cultist.
You have been brainwashed.

Found an article that you will love:

Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory”, page 1

Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory”, page 1

www.abovetopsecret.com

 

[Paulsie]

Look at the temperature of the earth millions of years ago when it was inhospitable to humans!

Truly retarded.

What's truly retarded is not seeing that over time, temperature is actually cooling.

Also that some 20,000 years it got so warm that Arctic ice melted. Without any human input.

 

[Paulsie]

I am aware of the temperature record...

But so far all we have from our resident "Its BS, and science is a cult" person is the stomping feet of a 2 year old going "NO!" and refusing to provide even the slightest shred of evidence to back up his claim.

I am pretty damned sure that many people here would be open to changing their point of view if presented with compelling evidence to show that the CO2 aspect of global warming is "bullshyte and a cult".

Maybe if you stopped projecting your unnecessary disdain, there would be more communication forthcoming.

Here's a link to article explaining warming preceding CO2 levels.

People should stop worrying about CO2 and start worrying about toxic chemicals, pollution and plastics. But where is the money in that right??

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

<p>When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming...

skepticalscience.com

 

[ToxicBunny]

Maybe if you stopped projecting your unnecessary disdain, there would be more communication forthcoming.

Here's a link to article explaining warming preceding CO2 levels.

People should stop worrying about CO2 and start worrying about toxic chemicals, pollution and plastics. But where is the money in that right??

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

<p>When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming...

skepticalscience.com

Mind posting a few peer reviewed studies that back that up...

And I am not projecting unnecessary disdain, our resident 2yr old temper tantrum boy has provided zero evidence so all the disdain is entirely justified.

 

[Ponderer]

Mind posting a few peer reviewed studies that back that up...

And I am not projecting unnecessary disdain, our resident 2yr old temper tantrum boy has provided zero evidence so all the disdain is entirely justified.

The point is that you have been fooled by propaganda to believe that there is a "climate crises", and that Carbon emissions is the cause of this "climate crises" ("global warming" and/or "climate change").
You absolutely believe this to be true, "because science".
But you don't know "the science".
You believe "the science" without knowing any of it.
You believe "the science" because enough "scientists" say so.
You, like many others, have been fooled.

The entire/whole "Carbon Emissions is killing our planet and is an existential threat" thing is propaganda.
It's not actual/true/real Science.
It's about brainwashing people so as to use those people to make money.
It's entirely a concocted thing.
It's about politics and money.

If you actually know what Science is (as opposed to thinking you know what Science is, but you really don't) you would recognize this as BS/fake/pseudo Science.
The thing is that people are gullible - some more so than others.
And you are one of those gullible people.
You know just enough Science to be fooled by it, but not enough Science to see it for the BS science it is.
You absolutely believe it's true.

 

[ToxicBunny]

The point is that you have been fooled by propaganda to believe that there is a "climate crises", and that Carbon emissions is the cause of this "climate crises" ("global warming" and/or "climate change").
You absolutely believe this to be true, "because science".
But you don't know "the science".
You believe "the science" without knowing any of it.
You believe "the science" because enough "scientists" say so.
You, like many others, have been fooled.

The entire/whole "Carbon Emissions is killing our planet and is an existential threat" thing is propaganda.
It's not actual/true/real Science.
It's about brainwashing people so as to use those people to make money.
It's entirely a concocted thing.
It's about politics and money.

If you actually know what Science is (as opposed to thinking you know what Science is, but you really don't) you would recognize this as BS/fake/pseudo Science.
The thing is that people are gullible - some more so than others.
And you are one of those gullible people.
You know just enough Science to be fooled by it, but not enough Science to see it for the BS science it is.
You absolutely believe it's true.

Waffle waffle waffle... Where is the peer reviewed study I asked for?

 

[Ponderer]

Waffle waffle waffle... Where is the peer reviewed study I asked for?

Sticking your fingers in your ears and laaaa-laaaa-laaaa-ing?
And you claim that I'm being immature, and you are the adult?

 

[ToxicBunny]

Sticking your fingers in your ears and laaaa-laaaa-laaaa-ing?
And you claim that I'm being immature, and you are the adult?

*pats on the head*