Crime Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say

Roop Holstry said:
Yeah I just read it. Seems somewhat conclusive.

Honestly a lot of weird stuff turns out to be sponges. That gold thing I posted before is speculated to be a sponge or egg case.
Click to expand...
I thought it was seamen.
 
N13 said:
Yeah, project your own internal bullshit on me.
Click to expand...
I didn't project anything. You were the one saying that all empirical data on the matter should be disregarded. Glad to see you're on the same page with the multinational oil companies.
 
BearGrounds said:
I guess they can grow at that depth. Pretty interesting.
Click to expand...
Creatures have been found deeper than that. As long as the sponges have marine snow or some sort of detritus to feed on I don’t think there is a limit to how deep they can be
 
dirtypablo said:
As to the content of the article, ignoring the obvious issues with the source and the fact that meteorologists aren't the same thing as climate scientists, the heat island effect is well known and accounted for by climate scientists. The 'study' they're referring to was an evaluation of a small set of temperature stations out of thousands, and was paid for and conducted by the heartland institute, an organization that gets it's funding from the fossil fuels industry. The study wasn't published in any peer reviewed journals.
Click to expand...
Not really worth further engaging with.
 
BearGrounds said:
No, I don't think that you are, hence why you shouldn't be so confident about dismissing reports solely based upon the source, without at all finding out if the data in question is correct and the money is being properly allocated.
Click to expand...

Dismissing the source is easy when you rely on an overwhelming consensus and pay attention to bias.

When 999 scientists in a room say one thing and the 1000th person says they're wrong, he'd better be making one hell of a case. Easier and more logical to ignore him than to try and understand whatever case he's making.
 
Loiosh said:
Dismissing the source is easy when you rely on an overwhelming consensus and pay attention to bias.

When 999 scientists in a room say one thing and the 1000th person says they're wrong, he'd better be making one hell of a case. Easier and more logical to ignore him than to try and understand whatever case he's making.
Click to expand...

This isn't good enough.
 
KOPPE said:
low iq conservatives want immediate results in everything. it takes time!
our progressive actions and efforts does not need to produce immediate results for you to decide whether it’s worth it. Not everything should be done with surface level progress.
Click to expand...
low iq <22>

you've been conned, and covid wasnt a wakeup call, it was a chance to bury your head deeper
 
Loiosh said:
Why not?

Are you saying the default is trust the one and not the nine hundred and ninety-nine?
Click to expand...

You're just dropping made up numbers of scientists agreeing on something. There aren't 999 out of 1000 scientists backing this data as verifiably unflawed.
 
BearGrounds said:
You're just dropping made up numbers of scientists agreeing on something. There aren't 999 out of 1000 scientists backing this data as verifiably unflawed.
Click to expand...

This data doesn't matter (to you and I). It matters to the scientific community who will consider it and reach a consensus. You want to believe something so you entertain a terrible source to consider data you likely could never understand. That's how they get you.

If this data matters why hasn't an analysis been peer reviewed and included in the discussion? That's a critical step, no?
 
BearGrounds said:
This isn't good enough.
Click to expand...

100 people are standing in front of a bridge you approach. 99 of those people are engineers, and say the bridge isn't safe. The last remaining guy doesn't have a degree in engineering, and has never worked in the field before, but says the bridge is safe.
Do you listen to the engineers, or do you listen to the 1 guy that doesn't have a background in engineering?
 
Loiosh said:
This data doesn't matter (to you and I). It matters to the scientific community who will consider it and reach a consensus. You want to believe something so you entertain a terrible source to consider data you likely could never understand. That's how they get you.

If this data matters why hasn't an analysis been peer reviewed and included in the discussion? That's a critical step, no?
Click to expand...

"I have no idea if the data is correct or the report on it is wrong, but I'm going to dismiss it anyway."

<KhabibBS>

Also, lmao at peer review. What peers, exactly? You are aware that journals are often used as a way to keep fringe topics and dissenting opinions out, aren't you?
 
jefferz said:
100 people are standing in front of a bridge you approach. 99 of those people are engineers, and say the bridge isn't safe. The last remaining guy doesn't have a degree in engineering, and has never worked in the field before, but says the bridge is safe.
Do you listen to the engineers, or do you listen to the 1 guy that doesn't have a background in engineering?
Click to expand...

Depends. If the 100th dude is pointing to some obvious structural damage that they're all ignoring, I'll go with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,239,344
Messages
55,621,541
Members
174,857
Latest member
DPcanwrestle

Share this page

Back
Top