View Full Version : Stossel on Climate Change
Stossel always has some excellent balanced vids on various topics. This one he goes after the biggest topic of them all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yn1MQjF5gs
His web site is full of stuff like that:
https://www.johnstossel.com/
Averageman
07-18-22, 13:38
End all debate, it's not about a lack of " facts" it's about tone. Your tone, not a lack of facts can call you partially false.
This goes back to a discussion we had here about Dinosaurs with feathers. They don't know, they're guessing and if you question them you're a heretic and need to be silenced.
No, what it is, is that they've got a good gig scaring the sh-t out of people and they don't need you messing it up. I mean how is a small minded bad science Scientist supposed to eat anyway?
Has anyone seen Al Gore or is he getting his Shakira aligned again?
Who fact checks the "fact checkers"?
Censorship is out of control. "Think the way we want you to think or you'll be silenced."
Who fact checks the "fact checkers"?
Censorship is out of control. "Think the way we want you to think or you'll be silenced."
The actual title of an article I'd written at the beginning Covid:
https://willbrink.medium.com/covid-19-who-is-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-c1fb4ef96773
Averageman
07-18-22, 18:24
The silencing of the free exchange of ideas and information is the most unscientific thing any climate "Scientist" could do isn't it?
Expelling you and your ideas from the information exchange, ridiculing you and silencing you is akin to something the Church might have done in the 12th Century.
WTF do these folks have to hide that is so nefarious that it requires silencing all opposition?
The silencing of the free exchange of ideas and information is the most unscientific thing any climate "Scientist" could do isn't it?
Expelling you and your ideas from the information exchange, ridiculing you and silencing you is akin to something the Church might have done in the 12th Century.
WTF do these folks have to hide that is so nefarious that it requires silencing all opposition?
I don't think they're hiding something as much as scientists are also prone to group think like everyone else. The suppression of science that does not jibe with the group think is as old as science itself. That germs caused disease was rejected totally, even against all evidence, the guy who invented the vaccine for a disease, had to give himself the disease and cure it (forget the disease), before anyone would listen to him, and on and on it goes. Scient(ists) are the problem, not science per se. As Maurice Maeterlinck said
— 'Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past.'
End all debate, it's not about a lack of " facts" it's about tone. Your tone, not a lack of facts can call you partially false.
This goes back to a discussion we had here about Dinosaurs with feathers. They don't know, they're guessing and if you question them you're a heretic and need to be silenced.
Just a minor point, we know "some" dinosaurs had feathers because we can see patterns in some recent fossils. Now obviously that is a long way away from ALL dinosaurs had feathers. So we know for sure a few species did and everything else is still speculation at best. But that is the nature of pop science these days.
The silencing of the free exchange of ideas and information is the most unscientific thing any climate "Scientist" could do isn't it?
Expelling you and your ideas from the information exchange, ridiculing you and silencing you is akin to something the Church might have done in the 12th Century.
WTF do these folks have to hide that is so nefarious that it requires silencing all opposition?
The vast amounts of money from both government and the private sector to move this agenda forward regardless of actual science. Got to keep those coffers full.
Shy of an all-out nuclear war I can't fathom how we peons (in the big picture of things) are affecting a planet's "climate". Sorry, ain't buying it. Never have either.
The actual title of an article I'd written at the beginning Covid:
https://willbrink.medium.com/covid-19-who-is-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-c1fb4ef96773
Good article. It's gotten to the point where if you're not on board with the official narrative, you're censored. Either that or they finally let you speak a year ot two too late. At least that's how it is on the big three, Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube, which have become de facto the public square as they're the main place where people share ideas. The amount of control the big tech companies have over information is unsettling.
Shy of an all-out nuclear war I can't fathom how we peons (in the big picture of things) are affecting a planet's "climate". Sorry, ain't buying it. Never have either.
If anything, we might have an almost negligible impact on holding off the next ice age which really is sorta due anytime between now and the next 1,000 years.
Averageman
07-18-22, 22:03
You know we had an Age of Enlightenment for a reason. We wanted to get past taking what the king and the Church had to say and debate these things by discussion and logic. It changed the way things were looked at and opened most issues for debate.
But who needs debate and discussion when you've got Globalism and Globalists calling the tune for guys like Fauci to dance to?
You do understand what a giant step back this is right?
You know we had an Age of Enlightenment for a reason. We wanted to get past taking what the king and the Church had to say and debate these things by discussion and logic. It changed the way things were looked at and opened most issues for debate.
But who needs debate and discussion when you've got Globalism and Globalists calling the tune for guys like Fauci to dance to?
You do understand what a giant step back this is right?
If you are saying we are in a pseudo science dark ages, don't wait for an argument from me. Science hasn't simply been politicized, in many cases it has been weaponized. The really scary shit it in the field of medicine where everything is supposed to be 100% peer reviewed, fact based and completely neutral.
Even in the stuff that isn't crippling to our economy, like the greenie shit, there is more unsubstantiated shit simply offered as "fantastic new discovery" that wouldn't even qualify as theory. Part of the problem is the internet as an information goliath that feeds absolutely stupid, idiotic and bizarre ideas and opinions presented as fact and proven discovery to legions of absolute morons who can't click on them links fast enough because they knew it was true all along. And when clicks represent revenue, we shouldn't be surprised that the net is becoming the World Weekly News.
Of course the articles are littered with phrases like "evidence suggests", "might be possible" and "if proven" in many cases, but we lost critical readers / critical thinkers long ago. Using the currently accepted criteria, I could probably write a comparable "GOD FOUND - Researchers Find Definitive Proof of Creator of Everything" article that meets their accepted standards of evidence.
I have this terrible feeling I'm missing out on a shit ton of money by not doing so.
Averageman
07-19-22, 03:09
The first time I ever heard Al Gore say anything about climate, I thought he had lost his mind. Al Gore losing his mind was kind of a given after he and his Wife Tipper demanded warning stickers on Kiss records, but I believe he was claiming we had 15 years or we were toast.
That was at least 35 years ago and I'm still not toast. Al is toast though, you don't hear much of him anymore, he sticks his head outside his shopping mall sized home to bitch about my carbon footprint.
When we all figured what a clown Ai Gore was they sent in an automaton like special needs kid from the Netherlands.
When she didn't work out they brought in the Chinese and COVID-19, follower quickly by Fauci who stick his foot in his mouth so often no one believes him.
All of this is like a sad stupid movie except it's not, these Globalists aren't F'ing around they hate you and everything about you and want you dead.
They just keep chipping away at us too.
But if you believe that this is all undeniable science and take this so serious that you truly believe and vote for this stuff, someone needs to throw a net over your head and give you a padded cell.
I give you climate-gate as evidence the science and peer review process is severly biased and politicized. Not even bothering to mention the WHO study showing the origins of the pandemic as the best most recent example served up to the lemmings on a silver platter.
Climate-Gate Data (https://sealevel.info/wmo_1999_climate_report_cover_hockey_stick_jones_bradley_mann_hughes_rounded_splice_points.html)
Its pretty clear now that the predictions made many years ago regarding temperature and sea levels are untrue. Remember the island that was supposed to be under water by now?
The “tipping point” warning first started in 1989
In the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.
The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”
That prediction didn’t come true 15 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.
This is a pretty good summary of the predictions that failed to appear in reality.
Predictions that never came to pass or were outright wrong (https://thenewamerican.com/embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry/)
Just a minor point, we know "some" dinosaurs had feathers because we can see patterns in some recent fossils. Now obviously that is a long way away from ALL dinosaurs had feathers. So we know for sure a few species did and everything else is still speculation at best. But that is the nature of pop science these days.
We also know from other fossils that some species had rough and/or scaly skin, but those ideas tend to be rejected because it doesn't fit the narrative. Pop science is certainly to blame, but so is actual science for not correcting incorrect impressions. Especially when they don't do so because they don't want to let facts get in the way of their narrative.
If anything, we might have an almost negligible impact on holding off the next ice age which really is sorta due anytime between now and the next 1,000 years.
I don't actually have a strong position on the topic, as I know my understanding of the topic is limited, and way out of my lane. We know the planet has been getting warmer, and doing so at what appears an accelerated rate. That seems well accepted by the vast majority in the climate science community.
The real Q is, what if any contribution do humans have, is there really anything we can do about it now (minus going back to caves the answer appears to be no...), and what are the potential benefits (longer grow seasons, more open land, faster growing crops, etc. etc) and how can humans simply adapt to it and get the most from it vs pretending there's anything we can really do about it?
That the scientific community and supporters of the one and only narrative block all efforts to have that discussion, is the real problem and what Stossel is getting at.
That open debate among those who are qualified to debate it being suppressed and careers ruined for even attempting it, that's the problem and why we can't have nice things. But, it's nothing new...
That's not good science, not how science works, but it's not the first time or the last science has been hijacked to push one side of a narritive and suppress any that does not fall along.
WWII, some of the best science minds on the planet refused to take place in the development of the A bomb, for both moral and or science based reasons, and were labelled commie sympathizers and had their careers all but ruined. Whether they were right or wrong about that, is another topic.
The person who made the nukes possible via his astounding breakthroughs in physics and his "simple" formula that changed the world, had an interesting and complex relationship to the production of the bomb: https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/albert-einstein-atomic-bomb/
We also know from other fossils that some species had rough and/or scaly skin, but those ideas tend to be rejected because it doesn't fit the narrative.
No one among the professional community who studies the topic rejects any such thing. There's no doubt some had feathers, or what were pre feathers, and some did not. The when, who, what, where, is more of the debate. I don't know why that's difficult to absorb as a concept as it's very simple and straightforward. If you can find a paper where someone who researchers such things claims all dinos were all covered in feathers and none had scaly skin skin and such, by all means post here.
Pop science is certainly to blame, but so is actual science for not correcting incorrect impressions. Especially when they don't do so because they don't want to let facts get in the way of their narrative.
There's no pop science involved, simply overwhelming evidence some dinos had feathers or proto feathers, and some did not, and that's one of various reasons they feel modern birds descended from dinos and such. The evidence for the latter very compelling but still hypothesis (1).
It's really not a complicated topic and makes no sense it's an ongoing thing here.
Can we get back to climate change?
(1) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dinosaurs-shrank-and-became-birds/
Inkslinger
07-19-22, 11:09
I’m the first to admit I know very little on the topic. I do listen to people speak on the topic and I’ll also watch an occasional documentary. With the information I’ve heard, I had a thought about an aspect of the carbon in the atmosphere that I’ve never heard anyone address. That could be because I’m way off base, but I’ll ask you all here to get your thoughts.
When it comes to the idea of humans contributing to or being the cause of climate change, which humans are they talking about? The ones here now or the ones that lived through the industrial revolution? Here’s a quote from an article in The Guardian for some context on timeframes.
“The lifetime in the air of CO2, the most significant man-made greenhouse gas, is probably the most difficult to determine, because there are several processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years, including chemical weathering and rock formation. This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years.”
So are we wasting our time? Are we currently experiencing the effects from human development from 200+ years ago? With our advancements in technology is the current state of CO2 going to be much lower in the future anyway?
I definitely feel that we should be good stewards of our environment, but I wholeheartedly believe this is an agenda that’s being used for things other than a clean environment.
We also know from other fossils that some species had rough and/or scaly skin, but those ideas tend to be rejected because it doesn't fit the narrative. Pop science is certainly to blame, but so is actual science for not correcting incorrect impressions. Especially when they don't do so because they don't want to let facts get in the way of their narrative.
Honestly, I don't even understand why there is a narrative. Dinosaurs were here for MILLIONS of years. There is going to be tremendous species variation, especially over time. Any serious paleontologist who doesn't get that is a hobbyist. Dinosaurs with feathers...fine there is evidence for that. Dinosaurs without feathers...fine there is evidence for that. But there are still huge, gaping holes in our knowledge base and in many cases we don't even have complete skeletal records for some species and we are declaring they had purple mohawks to attract a mate.
I think the desire to be able to declare a new species and receive credit is powerful and there are many organizations that cater to that. It's a bit like two karate schools who create Black Belt Hall of Fames and honor the known guys like Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, etc and then begin to include each others instructors so they can be "hall of fame" members on the same list as Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris. School A can then promote the teachers from School B to 8th degree black belt and then School B does the same for School A until eventually everyone in both schools is a supreme grandmaster 10th degree black belt who is in the MASTERS HALL OF FAME with Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris.
Same things happen in a lot of other organizations where there isn't a single parenting organization that is responsible for all these things. This is also why China keeps finding new dinosaur species every week.
Averageman
07-19-22, 20:05
Guys my mentioning Dinosaurs with feathers was a metaphor. I really don't care about Dinosaurs or feathers, but it was meant to show the evolving nature of science.
Just like Al and Tipper Gore going in front of the entire Nation demanding warning labels on Rock and Roll records, no one should shut you or your opinion down in the name of " Science".
Science doesn't work in silence, science doesn't work without opposing opinions.
Science is a constant question of why and how.
We don't know how our ecology or our climate works, we can study and continue to do so, but to get all the answers our grandchildren will be studying it and they won't know it all.
The next "fact checkers" or numbskull in a lab coat that tries to silence me because they "Know" the science is going to find my foot so far up their third point of contact they will become my house slipper.
There was a time in this country where we didn't all have such steadfast opinions, but we had common sense.
I've lived through at least three of these "We only have 15 years left" warnings and I'm only 61, do the math.
Back when your Grandfather was young and full of piss and gunpowder if someone tried to shut him and his friends up with.
"I know the science and you need to be quiet because I'm smart and your not."
Your Grandpa and his buddies would have tarred, feathered and run that jerk out of town on a rail.
If they don't know and you know they don't know, don't shut up. Be a pain in their a++, if you have to but do not quit pointing out their stupidity and do not STFU.
Guys my mentioning Dinosaurs with feathers was a metaphor. I really don't care about Dinosaurs or feathers, but it was meant to show the evolving nature of science.
Just like Al and Tipper Gore going in front of the entire Nation demanding warning labels on Rock and Roll records, no one should shut you or your opinion down in the name of " Science".
Science doesn't work in silence, science doesn't work without opposing opinions.
Science is a constant question of why and how.
We don't know how our ecology or our climate works, we can study and continue to do so, but to get all the answers our grandchildren will be studying it and they won't know it all.
The next "fact checkers" or numbskull in a lab coat that tries to silence me because they "Know" the science is going to find my foot so far up their third point of contact they will become my house slipper.
There was a time in this country where we didn't all have such steadfast opinions, but we had common sense.
I've lived through at least three of these "We only have 15 years left" warnings and I'm only 61, do the math.
Back when your Grandfather was young and full of piss and gunpowder if someone tried to shut him and his friends up with.
"I know the science and you need to be quiet because I'm smart and your not."
Your Grandpa and his buddies would have tarred, feathered and run that jerk out of town on a rail.
If they don't know and you know they don't know, don't shut up. Be a pain in their a++, if you have to but do not quit pointing out their stupidity and do not STFU.
Don't take any of my comments as debate. I think everyone here is on the same page.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.