[The Chipster]

I can't believe that so many of you think our entire scientific community is somehow conspiring to BS us about climate change. Our glaciers are melting (Glacier National Park is down to 25 active glaciers from 150 about 100 years ago), sea levels are rising (one of the easiest things in science to measure), the ice masses in Greenland and Antarctica are losing volume exponentially, and the average land and atmospheric temperatures are definitely increasing each decade. So, sure, go to your little meeting and all of you froth at the mouth about how smart you are compared to the best climatologists in the world.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by The Chipster

I can't believe that so many of you think our entire scientific community is somehow conspiring to BS us about climate change. Our glaciers are melting (Glacier National Park is down to 25 active glaciers from 150 about 100 years ago), sea levels are rising (one of the easiest things in science to measure), the ice masses in Greenland and Antarctica are losing volume exponentially, and the average land and atmospheric temperatures are definitely increasing each decade. So, sure, go to your little meeting and all of you froth at the mouth about how smart you are compared to the best climatologists in the world.

I think that might qualify as gulping down a double dose of Kool-Aid. Fortunately, most of that post is untrue

BTW, It's not the scientific community that is conspiring----It is the "powers that be", the ones that will profit from this nonsense. The scientists are merely their pawns, with a gun to their head, trying to survive professionally and financially since to state the truth results in suicide. And of course, the media is all too happy to aid them in pushing this false narrative.

[ThirdOfFive]

Awhile back while living in Northern Minnesota I woke up one morning to reports just north of us that the mercury had plummeted to -60. A record low. Not windchill, actual temp. Wind chills were below -100. I recall going for a walk that morning just to say I walked a mile in -100 winchill and record low temperature. I could.

What is (also) newsworthy about that particular morning is that in a town north of us, maybe 60 miles or so, the bitter cold necessitated that some kind of annual "global warming" conference had to be cancelled.

One has to appreciate the irony of it all...

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Awhile back while living in Northern Minnesota I woke up one morning to reports just north of us that the mercury had plummeted to -60. A record low. Not windchill, actual temp. Wind chills were below -100. I recall going for a walk that morning just to say I walked a mile in -100 winchill and record low temperature. I could.

What is (also) newsworthy about that particular morning is that in a town north of us, maybe 60 miles or so, the bitter cold necessitated that some kind of annual "global warming" conference had to be cancelled.

One has to appreciate the irony of it all...

But you're forgetting the new mantra of the alarmists to explain that----"Global warming can cause it to be extremely cold in places". Sort of the same way physicists can prove an elephant can fall UP off a cliff.

[dougjb]

Originally Posted by sounding

Hear how Carl Sagan misled Congress about the Venus runaway greenhouse affect - and find out how the media exaggerates global warming while failing to mention the ongoing 8-year global cooling trend. July 10 at 1 PM at Bridgeport, at the Science & Technology club meeting.

Let's see...I am debating whether to believe a world reknowned Ivy League professor (deceased) with multitudinous peer reviewed science articles written by him...namely Carl Sagan....OR should I believe one of these Village jesters who go on and on about how the whole world is wrong but they are correct about global warming being incorrect. These Village jesters do so by merely expressing their opinion without providing even one single peer reviewed science article substantiating their opinion. Perhaps it is because there are no peer review articles to support their denialism. Meanwhile, there are literally thousand and thousands of scientifically based, peer review articles supporting the general thesis that global warming is real and it is caused, in part, by human activities. Oh well, the climate change deniers will claim that peer review articles are part of a grand conspiracy against their opinions. Yet, anyone even closely connected to scientific thought, understands that peer reviewed articles are the gold standard in scientific thought.

When I first moved to the Villages I loved these clubs as presenting speakers who were experts in their field and now sharing their knowledge with other Villagers. How exciting! We have some real experts in their fields who have retired to the Villages. But, this presenter is not one of them. After hearing this speaker rattle on about the global conspiracy supporting global warming and not hearing this speaker EVER present a single well researched and peer reviewed science (despite a request being made), I really am wondering why clubs even allow this presenter to continue speaking. In actuality, the speaker who will be presenting this talk is a meteorologist, in other words, a weatherman. I do not know his educational credentials. But, those credentials would not appear to provide him with a basis to discuss climatology beyond presenting only his own opinion. If this club invites this speaker to present again, I would urge the club to change its name to Science, Technology and Fables. Maybe the next topic to be discussed is why the earth is flat...or why the sun revolves around the earth!

If you go to his presentation, try not to laugh at the presenter's imagination in presenting his material. Indeed, ask him to provide the citation for even one peer review article...and see him twist in the wind in his response. Or ask what his credentials are to speak on climatology. Did I hear crickets?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by The Chipster

I can't believe that so many of you think our entire scientific community is somehow conspiring to BS us about climate change. Our glaciers are melting (Glacier National Park is down to 25 active glaciers from 150 about 100 years ago), sea levels are rising (one of the easiest things in science to measure), the ice masses in Greenland and Antarctica are losing volume exponentially, and the average land and atmospheric temperatures are definitely increasing each decade. So, sure, go to your little meeting and all of you froth at the mouth about how smart you are compared to the best climatologists in the world.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I think that might qualify as gulping down a double dose of Kool-Aid. Fortunately, most of that post is untrue

BTW, It's not the scientific community that is conspiring----It is the "powers that be", the ones that will profit from this nonsense. The scientists are merely their pawns, with a gun to their head, trying to survive professionally and financially since to state the truth results in suicide. And of course, the media is all too happy to aid them in pushing this false narrative.

Which parts of the post are untrue? You accuse the scientists of writing biased studies, glaciers are melting, sea level is rising, and temperatures are increasing.

Yes, I know, maybe the Greenland sheet is melting and Antarctica sheet is decreasing and maybe the glaciers in Glacier National Park are receding but those *other* glaciers are growing! And while that is anecdotal evidence (albeit on a fairly large scale), we all know there is no value in finding a global study since we "know" that study would be biased in favor of climate change anyway.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

Thats your answer....answer a question with another question. OK....How do you know the pictures you see are not correct? So are you saying everyone is lying??? It appears in your world everything you do not agree with is a lie. Very disturbing........

Wow talk about putting words in someone mouth.

I do not know if the pictures are or are not correct but just because I ask a question, why would you think that everything that I question is a lie?

I just have this habit of thinking for myself.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

But you're forgetting the new mantra of the alarmists to explain that----"Global warming can cause it to be extremely cold in places". Sort of the same way physicists can prove an elephant can fall UP off a cliff.

Yeah, I've heard that explanation!

"The earth is getting warmer--so the earth is getting colder".

Makes perfect sense to me...

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by dougjb

Let's see...I am debating whether to believe a world reknowned Ivy League professor (deceased) with multitudinous peer reviewed science articles written by him...namely Carl Sagan....OR should I believe one of these Village jesters who go on and on about how the whole world is wrong but they are correct about global warming being incorrect. These Village jesters do so by merely expressing their opinion without providing even one single peer reviewed science article substantiating their opinion. Perhaps it is because there are no peer review articles to support their denialism. Meanwhile, there are literally thousand and thousands of scientifically based, peer review articles supporting the general thesis that global warming is real and it is caused, in part, by human activities. Oh well, the climate change deniers will claim that peer review articles are part of a grand conspiracy against their opinions. Yet, anyone even closely connected to scientific thought, understands that peer reviewed articles are the gold standard in scientific thought.

When I first moved to the Villages I loved these clubs as presenting speakers who were experts in their field and now sharing their knowledge with other Villagers. How exciting! We have some real experts in their fields who have retired to the Villages. But, this presenter is not one of them. After hearing this speaker rattle on about the global conspiracy supporting global warming and not hearing this speaker EVER present a single well researched and peer reviewed science (despite a request being made), I really am wondering why clubs even allow this presenter to continue speaking. In actuality, the speaker who will be presenting this talk is a meteorologist, in other words, a weatherman. I do not know his educational credentials. But, those credentials would not appear to provide him with a basis to discuss climatology beyond presenting only his own opinion. If this club invites this speaker to present again, I would urge the club to change its name to Science, Technology and Fables. Maybe the next topic to be discussed is why the earth is flat...or why the sun revolves around the earth!

If you go to his presentation, try not to laugh at the presenter's imagination in presenting his material. Indeed, ask him to provide the citation for even one peer review article...and see him twist in the wind in his response. Or ask what his credentials are to speak on climatology. Did I hear crickets?

As a scientist (not a climatologist), and even having had a graduate course in paleoclimatology, I would agree with you 99.5% of the time.

However, once a scientific concept becomes highly politicized with trillions of dollars on the line for those that can control the narrative, the whole game changes.

read the post from the TOTV member whose son IS a climatologist, but disagreed with anthropogenic global warming.-----Grants---DENIED, tenure---DENIED publications----DENIED. Professional reputation ruined. Family to feed, a career ahead of you, most of would just tell the world what the powers that be want them to. And "the peers" that review your research are in exactly the same boat. Then they come out with the claim that "96% of climate scientists are in agreement". Of course they are. Just as 96% (probably more) of people with a gun to their head will tell you that the Earth is a cube. Many early renaissance scientific advancements came from France, until the French Academy of Sciences in the early-mid 1700's became politicized and had to push only "approved" concepts. All new ideas and concepts that were at odds with the "accepted" narrative were squashed and scientific advancement moved on to England and Germany. Same here with climate change. Then, the narrative continues to claim that anyone who disagrees with "the science" (THEIR science) is a nut job or ignorant. Example----Believe Oswald wasn't a lone gunman?----you're a nut job, conspiracy theorist or worse.

So if I publish another paper in a journal, maybe something about the microorganisms in the carposphere of Laccaria trullisata, I would expect unbiased peer review. But I pity any climatologist who tries to publish anything contrary to the global warming narrative.

[dougjb]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

As a scientist (not a climatologist), and even having had a graduate course in paleoclimatology, I would agree with you 99.5% of the time.

However, once a scientific concept becomes highly politicized with trillions of dollars on the line for those that can control the narrative, the whole game changes.

read the post from the TOTV member whose son IS a climatologist, but disagreed with anthropogenic global warming.-----Grants---DENIED, tenure---DENIED publications----DENIED. Professional reputation ruined. Family to feed, a career ahead of you, most of would just tell the world what the powers that be want them to. And "the peers" that review your research are in exactly the same boat. Then they come out with the claim that "96% of climate scientists are in agreement". Of course they are. Just as 96% (probably more) of people with a gun to their head will tell you that the Earth is a cube. Many early renaissance scientific advancements came from France, until the French Academy of Sciences in the early-mid 1700's became politicized and had to push only "approved" concepts. All new ideas and concepts that were at odds with the "accepted" narrative were squashed and scientific advancement moved on to England and Germany. Same here with climate change. Then, the narrative continues to claim that anyone who disagrees with "the science" (THEIR science) is a nut job or ignorant. Example----Believe Oswald wasn't a lone gunman?----you're a nut job, conspiracy theorist or worse.

So if I publish another paper in a journal, maybe something about the microorganisms in the carposphere of Laccaria trullisata, I would expect unbiased peer review. But I pity any climatologist who tries to publish anything contrary to the global warming narrative.

As you know, anecdotal events, not subject to scientific review, e.g. the son you refer to who is a climatologist but who was at odds to others, is, as you know, simply not scientific. Perhaps he expressed an opinion that had NO scientific basis whatsoever, perhaps he was just a poor professor, perhaps he was having an affair with the dean's wife or son. We don't know. There are many reasons why a professor may not gain tenure but to attribute it, as you do, to being in opposition to climate change, is simply not scientific. It is a good story, but without more, it is just that.

Science is science, There have been many examples where a readily accepted theory has been disproved by those who go against the grain. But, they have done so on the basis of scientific fact, and, more recently, by presenting their findings of scientific fact in a peer reviewed journal. Unfortunately, for your perspective, there are NO scientific peer reviewed journal articles (out of the many thousands that have been published on the subject of climate change and the human involvement in such a change) that I am aware of. NONE...not one! Can you present even one? Or is the earth really flat because a lone voice in the ether claims it to be so?

[Keefelane66]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

As a scientist (not a climatologist), and even having had a graduate course in paleoclimatology, I would agree with you 99.5% of the time.

However, once a scientific concept becomes highly politicized with trillions of dollars on the line for those that can control the narrative, the whole game changes.

read the post from the TOTV member whose son IS a climatologist, but disagreed with anthropogenic global warming.-----Grants---DENIED, tenure---DENIED publications----DENIED. Professional reputation ruined. Family to feed, a career ahead of you, most of would just tell the world what the powers that be want them to. And "the peers" that review your research are in exactly the same boat. Then they come out with the claim that "96% of climate scientists are in agreement". Of course they are. Just as 96% (probably more) of people with a gun to their head will tell you that the Earth is a cube. Many early renaissance scientific advancements came from France, until the French Academy of Sciences in the early-mid 1700's became politicized and had to push only "approved" concepts. All new ideas and concepts that were at odds with the "accepted" narrative were squashed and scientific advancement moved on to England and Germany. Same here with climate change. Then, the narrative continues to claim that anyone who disagrees with "the science" (THEIR science) is a nut job or ignorant. Example----Believe Oswald wasn't a lone gunman?----you're a nut job, conspiracy theorist or worse.

So if I publish another paper in a journal, maybe something about the microorganisms in the carposphere of Laccaria trullisata, I would expect unbiased peer review. But I pity any climatologist who tries to publish anything contrary to the global warming narrative.

“ So if I publish another paper in a journal, maybe something about the microorganisms in the carposphere of Laccaria trullisata, I would expect unbiased peer review. But I pity any climatologist who tries to publish anything contrary to the global warming narrative.”
He’s talking about a mushroom variety

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

“ So if I publish another paper in a journal, maybe something about the microorganisms in the carposphere of Laccaria trullisata, I would expect unbiased peer review. But I pity any climatologist who tries to publish anything contrary to the global warming narrative.”
He’s talking about a mushroom variety

Correct, Laccaria sp. are mushrooms. They generally receive their nutrients from compounds that leech out of tree roots. In turn, they donate the same to the area around them, called the carposphere, where microorganisms thrive as a result.

I had no idea you were so interested in the microbiology of complex ecosystems, but now you have the short explanation. Meanwhile, my posts were about normal peer review on normal scientific papers as opposed to a subject that is highly politicized and worth trillions to SOME people.

[Keefelane66]

I spend a lot of time on Rhode Island beaches and the dunes on Cape Cod never seen them but never looked for them either. We do forage and collect beach plums and rosehip for jelly preserves. Not that fond of rosehip jelly How did Rosehips Help Us Win the War? - Bangers & Balls

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

I spend a lot of time on Rhode Island beaches and the dunes on Cape Cod never seen them but never looked for them either. We do forage and collect beach plums and rosehip for jelly preserves. Not that fond of rosehip jelly How did Rosehips Help Us Win the War? - Bangers & Balls

More likely to find them around oak and birch trees on the shores of a freshwater lake, I believe they are somewhat halophobic.

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Wow talk about putting words in someone mouth.

I do not know if the pictures are or are not correct but just because I ask a question, why would you think that everything that I question is a lie?

I just have this habit of thinking for myself.

The last thing they want is for you to think for yourself. After all we have gone through it is amazing some blindly follow what the government doctors/scientists say. They wouldn't lie to us.?
Fauci did knowingly mislead the public. Instead of telling us, honestly, that we didn't have enough initial PPE to protect both medical workers and the masses and that those not in healthcare settings should only use the sort of homemade cloth face masks that successfully protected many of us as the pandemic went on, Fauci simply lied to us, assuming that his overnight 180 wouldn't erode public trust in his credibility.
The government treated the people like children. It seems a portion of the population is ok with that.