Remember me
▼ Content

The murder of objectivity


The murder of objectivity26-11-2019 18:30
Third world guy
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
There is a serious and inconvenient stagnation in the Science of Climate Change.

From 1990 to 2015, scientific studies (and subsequent press reports) predominated in favor of global warming.

As of 2017 (and to date), scientific studies (and the subsequent press reports) have leveled off, and that's why alarmists have changed their narrative: now they talk about Climate Change instead of Global Warming; and Climate Emergency (or Climate Crisis) instead of Climate Change.

This neutral point has generated the formation of extremist (and sometimes violent) groups, of absurd exponents such as Greta Thunberg - who, like Al Gore - have no idea of ​​what is happening.

The Science of Climate Change is very important for humanity.

I am not referring to the absurd projections or the corrupt (supposedly official) alarmism of the IPCC, but to knowing reality and making objective decisions.

At this point in the game it is not clear whether CO2 actually heats the planet or benefits it, but we do know that this neutral point makes political decisions random.

Then there is the issue of 'climate repression': there are many documented cases in which scientists face the risk of losing their job or that objective institutions lose their funding.

The Science of Climate Change has become a spoil of political parties, in which scientists and institutions speculate to survive, all to the detriment of humanity and unfortunately the planet.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
26-11-2019 21:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Third world guy wrote:
There is a serious and inconvenient stagnation in the Science of Climate Change.

Define 'climate change'. You can't have any theory of science about something that is undefined. You can't even have a non-scientific theory about something that is undefined. You can have a religion about it though.
Third world guy wrote:
From 1990 to 2015, scientific studies (and subsequent press reports) predominated in favor of global warming.

Science isn't a study or research program. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
Third world guy wrote:
As of 2017 (and to date), scientific studies (and the subsequent press reports) have leveled off, and that's why alarmists have changed their narrative: now they talk about Climate Change instead of Global Warming; and Climate Emergency (or Climate Crisis) instead of Climate Change.

Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. Neither phrase is defined. Remember, you cannot define a word with itself or by using any other undefined word.
Third world guy wrote:
This neutral point has generated the formation of extremist (and sometimes violent) groups, of absurd exponents such as Greta Thunberg - who, like Al Gore - have no idea of ​​what is happening.

Al Gore knows exactly what is happening. There are millions of dupes out there willing to give the fool money for his 'message'. Kind of like some churches.
Third world guy wrote:
The Science of Climate Change is very important for humanity.
[quote]Third world guy wrote:
I am not referring to the absurd projections or the corrupt (supposedly official) alarmism of the IPCC, but to knowing reality and making objective decisions.

Okay. Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. You can't be objective about what you can't define.
Third world guy wrote:
At this point in the game it is not clear whether CO2 actually heats the planet or benefits it, but we do know that this neutral point makes political decisions random.

Politics is not random. Each faction in politics has specific goals (even if unstated), and everything about those goals drive all the actions of that faction.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface.

* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

Describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Third world guy wrote:
Then there is the issue of 'climate repression': there are many documented cases in which scientists face the risk of losing their job or that objective institutions lose their funding.

True. This funding comes from a single source: the government.
Third world guy wrote:
The Science of Climate Change has become a spoil of political parties, in which scientists and institutions speculate to survive, all to the detriment of humanity and unfortunately the planet.


There is no theory of science about what you can't define. Define 'climate change'.

Science isn't an institution. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It will survive, despite attacks up on it by religious zealots like the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
28-11-2019 17:00
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
Third world guy wrote:
There is a serious and inconvenient stagnation in the Science of Climate Change.

From 1990 to 2015, scientific studies (and subsequent press reports) predominated in favor of global warming.

As of 2017 (and to date), scientific studies (and the subsequent press reports) have leveled off, and that's why alarmists have changed their narrative: now they talk about Climate Change instead of Global Warming; and Climate Emergency (or Climate Crisis) instead of Climate Change.

This neutral point has generated the formation of extremist (and sometimes violent) groups, of absurd exponents such as Greta Thunberg - who, like Al Gore - have no idea of ​​what is happening.

The Science of Climate Change is very important for humanity.

I am not referring to the absurd projections or the corrupt (supposedly official) alarmism of the IPCC, but to knowing reality and making objective decisions.

At this point in the game it is not clear whether CO2 actually heats the planet or benefits it, but we do know that this neutral point makes political decisions random.

Then there is the issue of 'climate repression': there are many documented cases in which scientists face the risk of losing their job or that objective institutions lose their funding.

The Science of Climate Change has become a spoil of political parties, in which scientists and institutions speculate to survive, all to the detriment of humanity and unfortunately the planet.


President Trump isn't a climate change fan, and has been doing what he can to save the American taxpayers the expense, and the grief, of those attempting to steal our wealth, and freedom. Which might have a little to do with shifting strategies, since America was funding much of the crimes against humanity, climate change. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how effective it will be, since climate activism is a global problem, and still plenty of other countries to steal from. Our only hope, is that they panic, make some serious mistakes, and get caught. There will also be people forced out of their funding, who might give up they truth, which is unlikely, since they'll hold on to the hope of getting back in eventually.

Words and random numbers only carry so much weight, and people eventually ignore propaganda. The planet really hasn't changed, as we've been lead to believe, and that can't be changed. Over-hyping natural events only can go so far.
29-11-2019 06:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Third world guy wrote:There is a serious and inconvenient stagnation in the Science of Climate Change.

You can't very well use the word "stagnation" in reference to something that never happened in the first place.

Climate Change is a religion. There has never been any attempt to bring science into it. In fact, warmizombies H - A - T - E science more than anything.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-11-2019 14:17
Third world guy
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
IBdaMann wrote:

You can't very well use the word "stagnation" in reference to something that never happened in the first place.

Climate Change is a religion. There has never been any attempt to bring science into it. In fact, warmizombies H - A - T - E science more than anything.


There is a 'science of climate change' that includes many laws and principles related to climate.

That the followers of the IPCC pretend to be those who defend that science, is something else, but there are thousands of honest scientists trying to understand the climate and its variations: that is the true science of climate change, and it is what interests me and worries me.

What I mean by 'stagnation' is the way things are being handled towards the public: some pull to one side and the others to the other, and finally it is somewhat confusing.

I agree that for the followers of the IPCC, Al Gore and Greta, climate change is a religion, but for others it is a reality that must be understood.

The climate changes over time: it is a scientific and undeniable fact. What cannot be done in interpreting that change to protect economic interests.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
29-11-2019 17:50
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1529)
Third world guy wrote:I agree that for the followers of the IPCC, Al Gore and Greta, climate change is a religion, but for others it is a reality that must be understood

If "climate change" is not understood (or even defined as you see in your definition thread), it is certainly not proven or shown to be. Therefore one must BELIEVE it to be true. All religions have one thing in common. Faith. It is this blind FAITH that makes "climate change" a religion.

I have no problem with anyone's faith. Believe what you want. Practice whatever religion you want. DON'T ask me to pay for it.
29-11-2019 18:03
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Third world guy wrote:I agree that for the followers of the IPCC, Al Gore and Greta, climate change is a religion, but for others it is a reality that must be understood

If "climate change" is not understood (or even defined as you see in your definition thread), it is certainly not proven or shown to be. Therefore one must BELIEVE it to be true. All religions have one thing in common. Faith. It is this blind FAITH that makes "climate change" a religion.

I have no problem with anyone's faith. Believe what you want. Practice whatever religion you want. DON'T ask me to pay for it.


This sounds like Trump and Ukrainegate.


The scientists include men like Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, both of whose reports inform what President Obama has called "the gold standard" of international climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The new release of emails was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the original climategate leak and with the upcoming United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa. And it has already stirred strong emotions. To Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), for example, the leaker or leakers responsible are attempting to "sabotage the international climate talks" and should be identified and brought "to justice."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204452104577059830626002226
29-11-2019 18:05
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1529)
Third world guy wrote: The climate changes over time: it is a scientific and undeniable fact.

Which climate are you referring to? There is no "global climate". How would you describe Earth's climate?
29-11-2019 18:20
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1529)
James___ wrote:


This sounds like Trump and Ukrainegate.


The scientists include men like Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, both of whose reports inform what President Obama has called "the gold standard" of international climate science


What I find interesting is that you refer to our former Obama as "President", but our current commander in chief is just "Trump".


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Edited on 29-11-2019 18:21
29-11-2019 19:40
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:


This sounds like Trump and Ukrainegate.


The scientists include men like Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, both of whose reports inform what President Obama has called "the gold standard" of international climate science


What I find interesting is that you refer to our former Obama as "President", but our current commander in chief is just "Trump".



That's because he's not fit for office.




Join the debate The murder of objectivity:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact