Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 101

Thread: Climate science

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Not too far from Pofadder
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,503
    Thanked: 1906

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by JS-V8 View Post
    This comment raises an issue that I have had with social media and the types of people that frequent them.

    One of the most ridiculous ideas that has come about in the last few years is that all points of view are equally valid, and that any average citizen are just as equipped to judge facts and have a valid opinion as anybody else.

    "Hear all sides and decide for yourself" is the mantra being spewed, but this is nonsense, and this leads to the death of expertise.

    "I would rather have questions that cannot be answered that answers that can be questioned" Richard Feynman

    I read science reports, example I think 12 tipping points, it is an older one, I think I read it about 15 years ago if I remember correct, now replaced by reports that mention 9 tipping points.

    I am all into science , and I like using facts , in fact I like facts so much that I dare to question statements based on science papers where the paper clearly defines the limitations of the study, but these limitations are ignored in the statements made, but just because the statement is based on a scientific paper you dare not question the statement and then get lobbed into the category of deniers.

    Always leave room for doubt, to paraphrase Feynman.

    The climate change studies I have read over the past 20 years have changed so much in there predictions, and they are still changing.

    Life on Earth is going to survive, with or without humanity, yes we have to do something about pollution, overpopulation etc if we want to survive with cockroaches and smaller organisms that will probably be fine even if we mess up earth beyond what we can survive on.

    Though I trust most scientists and their results I have less trust for those that wield "science" to further their political agenda's.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bex For This Useful Post:


  3. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pretoria
    Age
    46
    Posts
    4,864
    Thanked: 1049

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by Bex View Post
    "I would rather have questions that cannot be answered that answers that can be questioned" Richard Feynman

    I read science reports, example I think 12 tipping points, it is an older one, I think I read it about 15 years ago if I remember correct, now replaced by reports that mention 9 tipping points.

    I am all into science , and I like using facts , in fact I like facts so much that I dare to question statements based on science papers where the paper clearly defines the limitations of the study, but these limitations are ignored in the statements made, but just because the statement is based on a scientific paper you dare not question the statement and then get lobbed into the category of deniers.

    Always leave room for doubt, to paraphrase Feynman.

    The climate change studies I have read over the past 20 years have changed so much in there predictions, and they are still changing.

    Life on Earth is going to survive, with or without humanity, yes we have to do something about pollution, overpopulation etc if we want to survive with cockroaches and smaller organisms that will probably be fine even if we mess up earth beyond what we can survive on.

    Though I trust most scientists and their results I have less trust for those that wield "science" to further their political agenda's.
    I think this is what the lawyer is on about.

    Things change all the time, cannot always work with the old models.

    Thank you for your valuable post.
    Nico Swart

    Triton 2.5DiD D/C with SS
    ZS6NJS

    One day, or Day One. You decide. Tomorrow is promised for no one!

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Pretoria
    Posts
    883
    Thanked: 3097

    Default Re: Climate science

    The point of this thread was a lawyer challenging scientists to a debate about their findings on climate change. Let's think about this - in the red corner is a lawyer and more often than not a lawyers job is to twist the facts to suit his clients particular position the good ones are extremely skilled at this, in the blue corner you have a group of scientists who don't debate as they deal in facts less likely to deal in the abstract. This is never going to be a fair contest the lawyer would wipe the floor with the scientists and create the hype and doubt that gets him clicks and likes on his YouTube Channel, compared to the scientist he is raking in the dough while they live from research grant to research grant.

    The best description of this challenge is an invitation to play pigeon chess, where the pigeon struts around knocking the pieces over, craps on the table and declares himself the winner. In this case the pigeon (leaving aside climate change) wants you to believe that gravity is a myth it's all electricity and magnetism, 9/11 is a hoax and you can predict earthquakes using his $5.99 earthquake predictor apps or if you prefer you can become a patron (already raised $119 910.00) here https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...prediction-app . If you even think there's any merit even considering what this guy regurgitates then you should believe Dali Mpofu when he says Zuma is a harmless old man who has done nothing wrong who is simply being persecuted by WMC.

    Free speech yes, snake oil salesman no thanks!
    Last edited by River Rat; 2021/07/26 at 01:29 PM.

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    De Wildt
    Age
    58
    Posts
    42,439
    Thanked: 19465

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by River Rat View Post
    while they live from research grant to research grant.
    ....while being cognisant of the fact that controversy gets them funding...........
    Jakes Louw
    2012 Jeep Sahara Unlimited 3.6 V6
    Percivamus

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Not too far from Pofadder
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,503
    Thanked: 1906

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by River Rat View Post
    The point of this thread was a lawyer challenging scientists to a debate about their findings on climate change. Let's think about this - in the red corner is a lawyer and more often than not a lawyers job is to twist the facts to suit his clients particular position the good ones are extremely skilled at this, in the blue corner you have a group of scientists who don't debate as they deal in facts less likely to deal in the abstract. This is never going to be a fair contest the lawyer would wipe the floor with the scientists and create the hype and doubt that gets him clicks and likes on his YouTube Channel, compared to the scientist he is raking in the dough while they live from research grant to research grant.

    The best description of this challenge is an invitation to play pigeon chess, where the pigeon struts around knocking the pieces over, craps on the table and declares himself the winner. In this case the pigeon (leaving aside climate change) wants you to believe that gravity is a myth it's all electricity and magnetism, 9/11 is a hoax and you can predict earthquakes using his $5.99 earthquake predictor apps or if you prefer you can become a patron (already raised $119 910.00) here https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...prediction-app . If you even think there's any merit even considering what this guy regurgitates then you should believe Dali Mpofu when he says Zuma is a harmless old man who has done nothing wrong who is simply being persecuted by WMC.

    Free speech yes, snake oil salesman no thanks!
    The lawyer would not be able to wipe the floor with the scientists if they stick to delivering the results of their studies, the cold hard facts, how would he do it? You cannot debate facts.
    What is up for debate is the conclusions drawn from the facts.

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Pretoria
    Posts
    883
    Thanked: 3097

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by Bex View Post
    The lawyer would not be able to wipe the floor with the scientists if they stick to delivering the results of their studies, the cold hard facts, how would he do it? You cannot debate facts.
    What is up for debate is the conclusions drawn from the facts.
    So you believe that it's possible to have a sensible debate with someone who denies that gravity exists? That 9/11 is a hoax? Really?

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to River Rat For This Useful Post:


  9. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Barberton
    Age
    63
    Posts
    6,546
    Thanked: 3181

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by jelo View Post
    ....while being cognisant of the fact that controversy gets them funding...........
    It is actually the opposite. If there is criticism from my side re. scientists and research, then it is exactly the fact that controversial aspects aren't getting the funding and effort to either put it to bed or bring it fully into the light.
    A statement was made in a post recently that there isn't such a thing as "mainstream science", but only science. I want to disagree, the fact that controversial subject don't get funding, is the reason science goes more or less in one direction. The old established scientists sit on these boards and get to decide where grant money goes. Often, if industry fund research, then the results are confidential. Scientists hate that, but if it is the difference between food on the table or not, they tend to go along.
    An example in my field is the origin of the Witwatersrand gold. Accepted model for a century was placer deposit, in other words the gold was washed into the riverbeds on surface. Volumes of research papers have been published over the years supporting this model. A few oversees scientists recognised many aspects of a hydrothermal deposit (the gold was introduced from within the crust by hydrothermal cells/vents), but the new model simply doesn't get traction. The old school scholars don't want their names (and financial backing) associated with these upstarts.
    I have literally spent my whole life looking at (official) hydrothermal gold deposits in Botswana, Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Barberton and I have great sympathy for a Wits hydrothermal model, but "mainstream" science isn't too interested.
    I have to confess, the hydrothermal argument is so convincing, that the scientific powers that are have conceded and now refer to it as a "replacement placer" deposit.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to RoelfleRoux For This Useful Post:


  11. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    De Wildt
    Age
    58
    Posts
    42,439
    Thanked: 19465

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by RoelfleRoux View Post
    It is actually the opposite. If there is criticism from my side re. scientists and research, then it is exactly the fact that controversial aspects aren't getting the funding and effort to either put it to bed or bring it fully into the light.
    A statement was made in a post recently that there isn't such a thing as "mainstream science", but only science. I want to disagree, the fact that controversial subject don't get funding, is the reason science goes more or less in one direction. The old established scientists sit on these boards and get to decide where grant money goes. Often, if industry fund research, then the results are confidential. Scientists hate that, but if it is the difference between food on the table or not, they tend to go along.
    An example in my field is the origin of the Witwatersrand gold. Accepted model for a century was placer deposit, in other words the gold was washed into the riverbeds on surface. Volumes of research papers have been published over the years supporting this model. A few oversees scientists recognised many aspects of a hydrothermal deposit (the gold was introduced from within the crust by hydrothermal cells/vents), but the new model simply doesn't get traction. The old school scholars don't want their names (and financial backing) associated with these upstarts.
    I have literally spent my whole life looking at (official) hydrothermal gold deposits in Botswana, Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Barberton and I have great sympathy for a Wits hydrothermal model, but "mainstream" science isn't too interested.
    I have to confess, the hydrothermal argument is so convincing, that the scientific powers that are have conceded and now refer to it as a "replacement placer" deposit.
    you actually support my argument: scientists follow grant money...........
    Jakes Louw
    2012 Jeep Sahara Unlimited 3.6 V6
    Percivamus

  12. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    De Wildt
    Age
    58
    Posts
    42,439
    Thanked: 19465

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by River Rat View Post
    So you believe that it's possible to have a sensible debate with someone who denies that gravity exists? That 9/11 is a hoax? Really?
    Where did you get this from? How would a lawyer put forth an argument that gravity doesn't exist? Are you actually following the discussion?
    Jakes Louw
    2012 Jeep Sahara Unlimited 3.6 V6
    Percivamus

  13. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Oasis
    Posts
    1,295
    Thanked: 6332

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by jelo View Post
    Where did you get this from? How would a lawyer put forth an argument that gravity doesn't exist? Are you actually following the discussion?
    Lawyers will make out any argument, except that gravity does not exist. That would be a denial of their whole existence.

    You see lawyers naturally gravitate towards hell.
    Cheers
    Willem Greyling

    "You too need a new signature" - Hedgehog

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to MANDREAS For This Useful Post:


  15. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Barberton
    Age
    63
    Posts
    6,546
    Thanked: 3181

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by jelo View Post
    you actually support my argument: scientists follow grant money...........
    And I'm saying the grant money follows conventional subjects

  16. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Barberton
    Age
    63
    Posts
    6,546
    Thanked: 3181

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by jelo View Post
    Where did you get this from? How would a lawyer put forth an argument that gravity doesn't exist? Are you actually following the discussion?
    It was in one of the links in this thread

  17. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,093
    Thanked: 2039

    Default Re: Climate science

    If a scientist researched a subject, had it reviewed and ultimately published and then another scientist comes along, researches the same thing, gets a different result, has his work reviewed and published - who decides what is fact?

    A lawyer can only "rebuff a version" with evidence. Same applies here.
    Stephan G

    4x4: 2018 Isuzu KB250 D-Teq 4x4 DC
    Platkar: 2019 Suzuki Baleno GLX

    "All of us get lost in the darkness. Dreamers learn to steer by the stars"

  18. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Not too far from Pofadder
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,503
    Thanked: 1906

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by River Rat View Post
    So you believe that it's possible to have a sensible debate with someone who denies that gravity exists? That 9/11 is a hoax? Really?
    I have seen a video of scientists debating flat earthers with the scientist presenting a bunch of facts.
    The flat earthers presented what they believe to be a coherent counter argument but to anyone watching their argument it is a jumble of incorrect observations oversimplified into some wild conjectures. It was funny to watch though sad to think the Flat earthers are serious.

    It may not be a sensible debate, interesting or entertaining maybe. Would it show the true facts? probably , if the scientist have done their work.

  19. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    De Wildt
    Age
    58
    Posts
    42,439
    Thanked: 19465

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by RoelfleRoux View Post
    It was in one of the links in this thread
    Which one debunks gravity?
    Jakes Louw
    2012 Jeep Sahara Unlimited 3.6 V6
    Percivamus

  20. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bryanston
    Age
    40
    Posts
    697
    Thanked: 4

    Default Re: Climate science

    “Define near future in decades. We're concerned about climate change but we ignore the elephant in the room. Cars aren't the issue. Overpopulation is the issue.”

    Logical answer: Depopulation
    And yes, I realize there are other softer solutions that will be raised however, I would argue that the severity of the “Climate Crisis” highlighted by events and their news coverage very much renders those solutions pointless i.e. no time!
    Question, how many people must be deleted?
    How much would you have to reduce the population year on year to save the world?

    Elephant in the room, yes it is always telling to look at what is not being said as well as what is.
    Would not those that have the means already started working on the “How”?
    If depopulation is the only answer then the “How” would be a very unpopular topic, not fit for the opinions of the masses.
    “One of the most ridiculous ideas that has come about in the last few years is that all points of view are equally valid, and that any average citizen are just as equipped to judge facts and have a valid opinion as anybody else.

    "Hear all sides and decide for yourself" is the mantra being spewed, but this is nonsense, and this leads to the death of expertise.”
    Boy if Adolf had a hymn book then this would be his Gangnam style https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0 (just for fun).

    Ok so we have established that average citizens are ill equipped to judge facts and therefore don’t have a valid opinion (probably best to just keep the facts from them then). Let us call these the undesirables.
    Someone should have all the facts and understanding to make the decision on the depopulation strategy.
    But who should this be? Well fortunately there is the Trans Humans who are the next step in evolution. Since they are now “more than average ” (Super race) the natural selection logic can kick in. Of course, it only makes sense that they should be the ones to identify the undesirables.
    I wonder, is there anything that we can see happening today that may help

    1. Identify them? (the undesireables)
    2. Provide a possible mechanism for the execution of the strategy?

    Keep in mind the taboo nature of the topic, said mechanism will have to look like something other than what it is so as not to cause panic. You know, the greater good and all that.

    I have always marveled at how a few individuals managed to pull off this feat prior to the war while nations sat idly by and watched the mass exterminations taking place. Super race=> undesirables=>mass murder. Well since their opinions didn’t matter there was probably nothing they could have done anyway right?
    Is it really that far fetched to imagine it taking place on a grander scale?
    Someone should make a movie about that. I mean other than movies like Hunger games, V for vendetta and so on.

    “Scientists don't actually publish opinions.
    They don't "believe" things.
    Scientists have measured data. They have data from other published papers. They use the data to come to conclusions. Conclusions that they go to great pains to fully explain how they are reached.”
    Fortunately for the scientists they have no accountability, it is the “others” that act on their “facts” who will be lauded as heros or villians (depending on how your cookie crumbles).
    Here is hoping that all those scientists end up on the right side of the equasion.
    .
    I seem to remember a time when open debate was quite a common practice in science circles. I guess this has changed – pity

    “....while being cognisant of the fact that controversy gets them funding”
    Yeees, there is absolutely no proof anywhere of the science saying what the funding needs it to say, right?
    Science cannot be bought after all, because it is just fact…

    Final thoughts from me:
    The changing climate is undeniable. It is the narrative that “ONLY HUMANS” are the cause of climate change I find to be a slippery slope with potentially dire consequences.
    If the science community is in accord with this narrative and by implication the extermination of billions is justified then so be it, we carry on as we are.
    If not, if there are other significant factors attributed to the change in climate I’d like to see a more collaborative effort to “correct” the news media in their portrayal of humans as the enemy.

    “I have seen a video of scientists debating flat earthers with the scientist presenting a bunch of facts.
    The flat earthers presented what they believe to be a coherent counter argument but to anyone watching their argument it is a jumble of incorrect observations oversimplified into some wild conjectures. It was funny to watch though sad to think the Flat earthers are serious.

    It may not be a sensible debate, interesting or entertaining maybe. Would it show the true facts? probably , if the scientist have done their work.”
    And the conclusion was a good one for you i.e. a jumble of incorrect observations oversimplified something other mere mortals could also make.
    Shouldn’t similar results from this proposed debate also render the same results.
    And if not, it merely means that there some important questions to be asked.

    “I have to confess, the hydrothermal argument is so convincing, that the scientific powers that are have conceded and now refer to it as a "replacement placer" deposit.”
    “you actually support my argument: scientists follow grant money...........”
    Does this not lend any credence to the idea that possibly “Climate Science” and models says what the grant money needs it to say?
    Suzuki Jimny 2011
    215/75/15 BFG AT, OME, Wizerd: Rocksliders, Bash Plate,Stabilizer Protection Cups and Diff Protector, Steering Damper, Bullbar

    2011 Ford Everest 4x4 (Mom's Taxi)

  21. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pretoria
    Age
    46
    Posts
    4,864
    Thanked: 1049

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by River Rat View Post
    The point of this thread was a lawyer challenging scientists to a debate about their findings on climate change. Let's think about this - in the red corner is a lawyer and more often than not a lawyers job is to twist the facts to suit his clients particular position the good ones are extremely skilled at this, in the blue corner you have a group of scientists who don't debate as they deal in facts less likely to deal in the abstract. This is never going to be a fair contest the lawyer would wipe the floor with the scientists and create the hype and doubt that gets him clicks and likes on his YouTube Channel, compared to the scientist he is raking in the dough while they live from research grant to research grant.
    I don't think so. You have to actually know something about something for such a debate. So if this lawyer is very skilled and has done his own research in this field, then it would make for an interesting debate amongst "equals" (as far as facts and knowledge goes in a particular field)

    But a law degree qualifying you to debate an expert in his (completely different) field - I don't think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bex View Post
    I have seen a video of scientists debating flat earthers with the scientist presenting a bunch of facts.
    The flat earthers presented what they believe to be a coherent counter argument but to anyone watching their argument it is a jumble of incorrect observations oversimplified into some wild conjectures. It was funny to watch though sad to think the Flat earthers are serious.

    It may not be a sensible debate, interesting or entertaining maybe. Would it show the true facts? probably , if the scientist have done their work.
    Exactly this.
    Nico Swart

    Triton 2.5DiD D/C with SS
    ZS6NJS

    One day, or Day One. You decide. Tomorrow is promised for no one!

  22. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Barberton
    Age
    63
    Posts
    6,546
    Thanked: 3181

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by jelo View Post
    Which one debunks gravity?
    https://youtu.be/3VOazE6M8Cc

  23. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    De Wildt
    Age
    58
    Posts
    42,439
    Thanked: 19465

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by RoelfleRoux View Post
    Good Lord, at least tell me where it is before I waste 14 minutes listening to this guy.

    In any case: wasn't it scientists who once said we couldn't travel faster than 50mph without bodily damage?
    Jakes Louw
    2012 Jeep Sahara Unlimited 3.6 V6
    Percivamus

  24. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Barberton
    Age
    63
    Posts
    6,546
    Thanked: 3181

    Default Re: Climate science

    Quote Originally Posted by JerryInJimny View Post
    “Define near future in decades. We're concerned about climate change but we ignore the elephant in the room. Cars aren't the issue. Overpopulation is the issue.”

    Logical answer: Depopulation
    And yes, I realize there are other softer solutions that will be raised however, I would argue that the severity of the “Climate Crisis” highlighted by events and their news coverage very much renders those solutions pointless i.e. no time!
    Question, how many people must be deleted?
    How much would you have to reduce the population year on year to save the world?

    Elephant in the room, yes it is always telling to look at what is not being said as well as what is.
    Would not those that have the means already started working on the “How”?
    If depopulation is the only answer then the “How” would be a very unpopular topic, not fit for the opinions of the masses.
    “One of the most ridiculous ideas that has come about in the last few years is that all points of view are equally valid, and that any average citizen are just as equipped to judge facts and have a valid opinion as anybody else.

    "Hear all sides and decide for yourself" is the mantra being spewed, but this is nonsense, and this leads to the death of expertise.”
    Boy if Adolf had a hymn book then this would be his Gangnam style https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0 (just for fun).

    Ok so we have established that average citizens are ill equipped to judge facts and therefore don’t have a valid opinion (probably best to just keep the facts from them then). Let us call these the undesirables.
    Someone should have all the facts and understanding to make the decision on the depopulation strategy.
    But who should this be? Well fortunately there is the Trans Humans who are the next step in evolution. Since they are now “more than average ” (Super race) the natural selection logic can kick in. Of course, it only makes sense that they should be the ones to identify the undesirables.
    I wonder, is there anything that we can see happening today that may help

    1. Identify them? (the undesireables)
    2. Provide a possible mechanism for the execution of the strategy?

    Keep in mind the taboo nature of the topic, said mechanism will have to look like something other than what it is so as not to cause panic. You know, the greater good and all that.

    I have always marveled at how a few individuals managed to pull off this feat prior to the war while nations sat idly by and watched the mass exterminations taking place. Super race=> undesirables=>mass murder. Well since their opinions didn’t matter there was probably nothing they could have done anyway right?
    Is it really that far fetched to imagine it taking place on a grander scale?
    Someone should make a movie about that. I mean other than movies like Hunger games, V for vendetta and so on.

    “Scientists don't actually publish opinions.
    They don't "believe" things.
    Scientists have measured data. They have data from other published papers. They use the data to come to conclusions. Conclusions that they go to great pains to fully explain how they are reached.”
    Fortunately for the scientists they have no accountability, it is the “others” that act on their “facts” who will be lauded as heros or villians (depending on how your cookie crumbles).
    Here is hoping that all those scientists end up on the right side of the equasion.
    .
    I seem to remember a time when open debate was quite a common practice in science circles. I guess this has changed – pity

    “....while being cognisant of the fact that controversy gets them funding”
    Yeees, there is absolutely no proof anywhere of the science saying what the funding needs it to say, right?
    Science cannot be bought after all, because it is just fact…

    Final thoughts from me:
    The changing climate is undeniable. It is the narrative that “ONLY HUMANS” are the cause of climate change I find to be a slippery slope with potentially dire consequences.
    If the science community is in accord with this narrative and by implication the extermination of billions is justified then so be it, we carry on as we are.
    If not, if there are other significant factors attributed to the change in climate I’d like to see a more collaborative effort to “correct” the news media in their portrayal of humans as the enemy.

    “I have seen a video of scientists debating flat earthers with the scientist presenting a bunch of facts.
    The flat earthers presented what they believe to be a coherent counter argument but to anyone watching their argument it is a jumble of incorrect observations oversimplified into some wild conjectures. It was funny to watch though sad to think the Flat earthers are serious.

    It may not be a sensible debate, interesting or entertaining maybe. Would it show the true facts? probably , if the scientist have done their work.”
    And the conclusion was a good one for you i.e. a jumble of incorrect observations oversimplified something other mere mortals could also make.
    Shouldn’t similar results from this proposed debate also render the same results.
    And if not, it merely means that there some important questions to be asked.

    “I have to confess, the hydrothermal argument is so convincing, that the scientific powers that are have conceded and now refer to it as a "replacement placer" deposit.”
    “you actually support my argument: scientists follow grant money...........”
    Does this not lend any credence to the idea that possibly “Climate Science” and models says what the grant money needs it to say?
    Good post, thanks for the contribution.
    I'm not aware that climate science is saying humans are the only reason that the climate can change.
    The one link I supplied showed how geological processes and natural processes over geological time did (and obviously continues) to impact on the atmosphere and climate.
    Similarly can a catastrophic "super volcano" eruption cause severe climatic distuption, similar a large extraterrestrial impact. This has happened in the past and will happen in the future. These aspects are being studied, but there isn't a clear and present danger in that regard. Also, there isn't a heck of a lot we can currently do to avoid either of these potential catastrophes.
    However, human impact on climate is "clear and present" and can be avoided if we 1) accepted the threat and 2) were prepared to change our views and lifestyles.
    Your point on science following the "old school money" being the reason why left field research is required is valid. That is why the UN established Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interg...ge?wprov=sfla1
    This allows for a very large group of scientists and top goverment officials to systematically go through all the climate science papers for the last six years and agree on the next research targets.
    Last edited by RoelfleRoux; 2021/07/26 at 04:51 PM.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •