Hey RT fuck bois

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan Gleesak
  • Start date Start date
Aynirar27 said:
I agree with that man. That’s why I preach to ignore the headlines. Unfortunately for me, every time I say that, people come at me with more dopey headlines
Click to expand...
gRVeaLG.jpg
 
Aynirar27 said:
But when do you think that started? Do you think it’s something new?
Click to expand...
Of course not.

Aynirar27 said:
It’s why I brought up scientists from the 1800s and early 1900s whose research is still relevant today on this topic. I don’t think WEF was paying off some dude in 1860 Sweden to discover the concept of Greenhouse gases ya know?
Click to expand...
You've mentioned greenhouses gasses a number of times Danno, and therein lies a part of the deception IMHO. CO2 is the weakest of all of 'em and I can't for the life of me see how an increases of, say, 100ppm could possibly affect climate measurably. Clouds? Sure; we see it all-the-time, water vapour's being the most-powerful GG. Super-high concentrations of methane? Yeh, I can imagine that, but not CO2 at 400ppm as opposed to 300-and-sumpin'. Just no way.

As I suggested, the "problem" is in interpretation. Heck, I'm not even buying the 1-layer-equals-one-year core-sample assumption. When the lost squadron was dug up (they made a movie about it I think), there were upwards of 350 "annual" layers in the ice, "laid down" in, IIRC, less than 70 years. Same goes for tree rings and on it goes.

So when I say assumptions, I'm talking about houses of cards many layers deep. At the tip of said houses appear the peer-reviewed studies. On top of that, said peers rely on perpetuating their narratives in order to retain their incomes. Sooo many opportunities for corruption, knowing or otherwise. Hopefully you can see why I'm sceptical. If not, no matter.

I didn't want to get into a debate about this; it's your job as members to have at it, hence why I chose to post my view on "peer-reviewed studies" 'cause I felt it'd be the most-succinct / effective way to describe what we're experiencing these days / the crux of many matters, if you will.
 
Monkey Man said:
Of course not.


You've mentioned greenhouses gasses a number of times Danno, and therein lies a part of the deception IMHO. CO2 is the weakest of all of 'em and I can't for the life of me see how an increases of, say, 100ppm could possibly affect climate measurably. Clouds? Sure; we see it all-the-time, water vapour's being the most-powerful GG. Super-high concentrations of methane? Yeh, I can imagine that, but not CO2 at 400ppm as opposed to 300-and-sumpin'. Just no way.

As I suggested, the "problem" is in interpretation. Heck, I'm not even buying the 1-layer-equals-one-year core-sample assumption. When the lost squadron was dug up (they made a movie about it I think), there were upwards of 350 "annual" layers in the ice, "laid down" in, IIRC, less than 70 years. Same goes for tree rings and on it goes.

So when I say assumptions, I'm talking about houses of cards many layers deep. At the tip of said houses appear the peer-reviewed studies. On top of that, said peers rely on perpetuating their narratives in order to retain their incomes. Sooo many opportunities for corruption, knowing or otherwise. Hopefully you can see why I'm sceptical. If not, no matter.

I didn't want to get into a debate about this; it's your job as members to have at it, hence why I chose to post my view on "peer-reviewed studies" 'cause I felt it'd be the most-succinct / effective way to describe what we're experiencing these days / the crux of many matters, if you will.
Click to expand...
I can certainly see why you are sceptical. I just don’t think it’s as wide spread as you believe it is.
So I’ll just end with 100ppm is a lot when you compare it to previous levels. It’s a substantial percentage. Over 50% in a couple hundred years. That is staggering and anything but “natural”. And as I’ve preached, it’s important because humans can reverse it.

Anyways, always a pleasure conversing with you
 
Aynirar27 said:
That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense man.
Also there is a stark difference between theory and theorem and unfortunately they are often used interchangeably.
Click to expand...
It does make sense. Every time someone who thinks they’re smarter than everyone else ( I’m sure it’s like the first course you take when you enroll in college) is confronted with evidence that what they think is wrong or questioned about the lack of evidence supporting what they think is right we gotta hear “ You just don’t understand the scientific process”. The fact that almost all “ Experts” are bought and paid for aside, scientists are by and large a bunch of pompous assholes who are convinced they’re the smartest person in the room. Weeding through what is fact and what is a “consensus “ is a fucking joke. I see shit on Discovery or other egghead programs my ridiculously over educated wife watches all the time where these people flat state theories and consensi ( I made that word up) as facts. And they’re fucking not. Maybe they’re accurate. Who the fuck knows. They damn well ought to say “ scientists believe” or preface it with some kind of caveat but they don’t. And every other day it’s something like, “scientists now believe”, blah, blah, blah.

And they wonder why people think they’re full of shit.

And dude I like science. I think it’s interesting. They’re fucking ruining it.
 
Floyd Eye said:
It does make sense. Every time someone who thinks they’re smarter than everyone else ( I’m sure it’s like the first course you take when you enroll in college) is confronted with evidence that what they think is wrong or questioned about the lack of evidence supporting what they think is right we gotta hear “ You just don’t understand the scientific process”. The fact that almost all “ Experts” are bought and paid for aside, scientists are by and large a bunch of pompous assholes who are convinced they’re the smartest person in the room. Weeding through what is fact and what is a “consensus “ is a fucking joke. I see shit on Discovery or other egghead programs my ridiculously over educated wife watched all the time where these people flat state theories and consensi ( I made that word up) as facts. And they’re fucking not. Maybe they’re accurate. Who the fuck knows. They damn well ought to say “ scientists believe” or preface it with some kind of caveat but they don’t. And every other day it’s something like, @ scientists now believe, blah, blah, blah.

And they wonder why people think they’re full of shit.

And dude I like science. I think it’s interesting. They’re fucking ruining it.
Click to expand...
You're making a whole lot of sense.

:unsure:
 
This thread cannot be real. :ROFLMAO:
Though, I'm glad that people are allowed to speak freely.
The matter of fact is off the charts.

1708572650618.gif
 
Floyd Eye said:
It does make sense. Every time someone who thinks they’re smarter than everyone else ( I’m sure it’s like the first course you take when you enroll in college) is confronted with evidence that what they think is wrong or questioned about the lack of evidence supporting what they think is right we gotta hear “ You just don’t understand the scientific process”. The fact that almost all “ Experts” are bought and paid for aside, scientists are by and large a bunch of pompous assholes who are convinced they’re the smartest person in the room. Weeding through what is fact and what is a “consensus “ is a fucking joke. I see shit on Discovery or other egghead programs my ridiculously over educated wife watched all the time where these people flat state theories and consensi ( I made that word up) as facts. And they’re fucking not. Maybe they’re accurate. Who the fuck knows. They damn well ought to say “ scientists believe” or preface it with some kind of caveat but they don’t. And every other day it’s something like, @ scientists now believe, blah, blah, blah.

And they wonder why people think they’re full of shit.

And dude I like science. I think it’s interesting. They’re fucking ruining it.
Click to expand...
I agree a handful of talking heads are ruining it, but I don’t think that should cause you to discredit all the lowly lab techs and research assistants doing most of the work that don’t get paid dick. It’s not a glamorous life.
I spent 2 years digging holes in glacial washouts and baking the soil just to get to the interesting stuff. Science at its heart is about finding the truth
 
Aynirar27 said:
I agree a handful of talking heads are ruining it, but I don’t think that should cause you to discredit all the lowly lab techs and research assistants doing most of the work that don’t get paid dick. It’s not a glamorous life.
I spent 2 years digging holes in glacial washouts and baking the soil just to get to the interesting stuff. Science at its heart is about finding the truth
Click to expand...
It’s supposed to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top