[sounding]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

This would be mildly humorous if you had not already made it clear that you are being serious.

Of course I'm serious. I'm always serious. Life is too short for tom-foolery. It's amazing how the satanic gas, called CO2, is making life on earth so much better. Even before the EPA declared CO2 a pollutant, CO2 was demonstrating its demonic evil powers -- decreasing tornadoes, hurricanes, and even land-falling hurricanes. Data trends for floods, droughts, and wildfires are all decreasing with increasing CO2. Polar bear population is rising as hunting them is expanding -- but at $50,000 a head. And the Great Barrier Reef corals are at a 36-year high. If CO2 is a pollutant, then let's make more -- much more -- and that way commercial greenhouses won't have to spend extra bucks to pump CO2 into them to help plants grow bigger and faster.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by daniel200

Everyone knows you should not store CO2 near hot sources. They tend blow up. As far as the “true or false”; I plead the fifth. Hmm, i used to believe only crooks plead the fifth.

CO2 is used in fire suppression systems for many industrial applications. It's a life-saver in many ways.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

These arguments sound exactly like those made against the CDC, Dr. Fauci, concern over COVID, mitigation efforts, vaccine manufacturers, the vaccines, and now the boosters.

I am truly having a hard time figuring out whether I should follow the science, believe those that can dig up articles refuting the science, or do my own research.

Follow the "data" and not the "science." Science is just someone's opinion of the data -- which has seen numerous forms of corruption throughout history. This is why "data" is presented at the Weather Club. Specifically, several examples of Science .vs. Data will be exposed tomorrow (Oct 20), at 1:30 PM at Bridgeport.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by sounding

Follow the "data" and not the "science." Science is just someone's opinion of the data -- which has seen numerous forms of corruption throughout history. This is why "data" is presented at the Weather Club. Specifically, several examples of Science .vs. Data will be exposed tomorrow (Oct 20), at 1:30 PM at Bridgeport.

That sounds a lot like, "do your own research."

"follow the data" requires understanding the data and drawing conclusions from it., that is what scientists do. Until I have a much better understanding of how the data was collected, I'll have to trust the experts and scientists to interpret it.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Which is exactly what the other deniers would say. And yes, I know, the difference is you are right and they are just a bunch of crazies.



It is possible that I had that in mind when I used the phrase.

You mean it's NOT flatulent cattle??

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

That sounds a lot like, "do your own research."

"follow the data" requires understanding the data and drawing conclusions from it., that is what scientists do. Until I have a much better understanding of how the data was collected, I'll have to trust the experts and scientists to interpret it.

No ... follow-the-data only requires eyes, common sense, and logic. It's easier than you think. Relinquishing "science" to others is extremely dangerous, unless that scientist has a proven track record -- like Al Gore. He had no climate change track record -- and all his forecasts failed. There are many past examples of millions being killed based on corrupted science, which is often associated with the equally dangerous term Consensus ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-FxwVkQ60

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

That sounds a lot like, "do your own research."

"follow the data" requires understanding the data and drawing conclusions from it., that is what scientists do. Until I have a much better understanding of how the data was collected, I'll have to trust the experts and scientists to interpret it.

Didn't someone say "Trust but verify" a while back?

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Didn't someone say "Trust but verify" a while back?

Ditto. And here's a perfect example of the "verification" required when people (so-called scientists and experts) make claims about man-made climate change, and who have NO proven "climate-change" track record ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVh3C73EVLU

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by sounding

No ... follow-the-data only requires eyes, common sense, and logic. It's easier than you think. Relinquishing "science" to others is extremely dangerous, unless that scientist has a proven track record -- like Al Gore. He had no climate change track record -- and all his forecasts failed. There are many past examples of millions being killed based on corrupted science, which is often associated with the equally dangerous term Consensus ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-FxwVkQ60

If you don't understand where the data came from, how it was collected, and what the limitations of the collection platform are then you cannot properly interpret it. This was easy to see with the COVID denials.

I don't know which side of this debate is correct but it is not convincing to hear someone with no proven climate change track record telling me they are right and the other experts are wrong. Confirmation bias and emphatic assertion do not make convincing arguments.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

If you don't understand where the data came from, how it was collected, and what the limitations of the collection platform are then you cannot properly interpret it. This was easy to see with the COVID denials.

I don't know which side of this debate is correct but it is not convincing to hear someone with no proven climate change track record telling me they are right and the other experts are wrong. Confirmation bias and emphatic assertion do not make convincing arguments.

20,000 years ago NY City was under 2 miles of ice. The climate changed and now we are ice free----no fossil fuels involved. That's all the "climate change track record" anyone needs. These "experts" that try to extrapolate 150 years of data into 4 million years of climate have a "track record"----wrong most of the time. Remember the impending ice age of the 70's, or the complete melting of the ice caps by 2010?????

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Not even remotely the same thing, not even close

First, the pandemic was here, it was real, and people were dying----Climate change "calamity" is 20,000 years away, and only the truly indoctrinated would claim people are dying from it (citing storms and droughts---all short-term weather events, not climate change)

Second, we have a pretty extensive knowledge of viruses and vaccines and know how to mitigate a pandemic. On the other hand, we sit here with about 150 years of climate data out of the last 4 million years of climate change, have no perspective, and can only grasp at straws as to what if anything we can do.

Lastly, as far as doing your "own research":

20,000 years away? Just may be sooner than that, IF some of us don't quit shouting that science is a conspiracy to steal our money.
150 years of climate data? The data is in core samples of earth and ice. It is in the rocks and evidence is there. That is how we know what the earth climate was in past ages. But you deny or forgot millions of years of earth history and the sciences that solve the mysteries of the past. Instead you brand all those scientists as idiots, liars and conspirators in a money grab scam?
And the little gravestone? That is an insult to all the men and women who ever did research to try and find cures for human illnesses or answers to scientific questions.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

20,000 years away? Just may be sooner than that, IF some of us don't quit shouting that science is a conspiracy to steal our money.
150 years of climate data? The data is in core samples of earth and ice. It is in the rocks and evidence is there. That is how we know what the earth climate was in past ages. But you deny or forgot millions of years of earth history and the sciences that solve the mysteries of the past. Instead you brand all those scientists as idiots, liars and conspirators in a money grab scam?
And the little gravestone? That is an insult to all the men and women who ever did research to try and find cures for human illnesses or answers to scientific questions.

"The data is in core samples of earth and ice. It is in the rocks and evidence is there."
------subject to a wide range of interpretation

"Instead you brand all those scientists as idiots, liars and conspirators in a money grab scam"
----I never posted that----only that they are wrong, misguided, or have an agenda---such as keeping their job

"That is an insult to all the men and women who ever did research to try and find cures for human illnesses or answers to scientific questions."
-----no, that insult was directed to those, who at the height of the pandemic ignored a wide variety of experts and instead fancied themselves as having a medical degree (from the University of Google)

Nice try, but I won't allow you to twist my words

I will, however, concede that those catastrophic global warming changes might come sooner---like 19,800 years

[Normal]

If you don’t agree with my opinion or my choice of scientist’s causes of Global Climate change, you are wrong. S/

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

If you don't understand where the data came from, how it was collected, and what the limitations of the collection platform are then you cannot properly interpret it. This was easy to see with the COVID denials.

I don't know which side of this debate is correct but it is not convincing to hear someone with no proven climate change track record telling me they are right and the other experts are wrong. Confirmation bias and emphatic assertion do not make convincing arguments.

You just made an assumption. In science that is dangerous. For starters, NONE of the UN climate change models are have verified. They all run way too hot for the past 30+ years. Anyone can see that from the plotted data. Second, none of the "climate models" can even be trusted, because NONE have ever replicated past climate changes -- e.g., no track record -- that are just toys because you can play with them. Third, and this is also easy to see ... for those who still believe in man-made global warming, just Google this ... "How much as man-made CO2 altered earth's temperature last year." Let me know when find the answer (keep in mind "man-made" CO2).

[Bill14564]

On second thought, not worth the effort