Alfa Romeo Forums banner

2721 - 2740 of 2929 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
AOC is psycho and has lost her mind along with the other 3 radical left wing congress women that hate the USA.
I think they love the USA, but they have a different vision for it than you do. But even assuming they hate the USA and want to burn it into the ground...

Why on earth do you care so much? They are freshman congresswomen with effectively no power to implement their policy ideas. You would basically never hear about them outside their districts if right wing media and those who repeat it weren't constantly ranting and raving about them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
It seems the Left lives a lie. For libertarians this is OK. But it is not OK when the Left imposes it superstitions upon the public. In order to control everyone.
The one about modern society, carbon dioxide emissions and wild fires is another fantasy that is not working. So they twist the data.
From Tony Heller:

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/07/new-video-caution-high-fire-propaganda-danger/
I've been asking the climate deniers for months to post peer reviewed research supporting their conclusions, or at least post peer-reviewed research they disagree with coupled with specific objections.

Alas, all I get are blogs (usually the same one over and over), editorials, and rants about politicians. Don't claim one side of a political divide is ignoring science if you are unwilling to engage in the science yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,132 Posts
Interglacial + status-anxiety + magical-thinking = warmism. Anti-porn cursades, anti-smoking, militant veganism, 55mph speed limits, gun-control, temperance and prohibition all spring from the same collective behavior pool.


I was going to write a more fulsome explanation but but, having done it several times already on this by now hoary thread, I decided this shortened version will suffice. History shows that True Believers gotta' believe and are not easily persuaded by counter arguments. Automobile-safety cursaders absolutely believed that the 55mph speed limit would reduce "carnage on our highways" when, in fact, deaths per 100k had been declining for decades. Still, the discourse continues to be fun. Sometimes, anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
Interglacial + status-anxiety + magical-thinking = warmism, anti-porn cursades, anti-smoking, militant veganism, 55mph speed limits, gun-control, temperance and prohibition . . .


I was going to write a more fulsome explanation but but, having done it several times already on this now hoary thread, I decided this shortened version will suffice. History shows that True Believers gotta' believe. Automobile-safety cursaders absolutely believed that the 55mph speed limit would reduce "carnage on our highways" when, in fact, deaths per 100k had been declining for decades. Still, the discourse continues to be fun.
You guys keep arguing against a hypothetical "true believer" who is not present in this thread, and seems mostly to be present in your own mind. I've only come to the following conclusions about climate change:

1) The climate has been warming over the course of the 20th and 21st century. You guys can't seem to decide whether this is true and a natural phenomenon or whether the data indicating it to be the case has been doctored. I've known enough scientists and read enough research to conclude the chance of a mass conspiracy on this front is effectively nil.

2) This warming is correlated with carbon emissions, but the exact causal relationship (or lack thereof) is difficult to determine. The scientific method has a difficult time with causality. This issue has been discussed since the 18th century enlightenment thinkers.

3) Whatever conclusions one draws about item 2 above, it's probably a good idea to move away from fossil fuels because a) there alternative energy sources that are technically superior due to better distribution or higher energy density, and b) reduced air pollution/smog independent from climate risk.


Like any conclusions about scientific fact, these are all subject to change if the weight of evidence indicates that the prior conclusions were flawed for whatever reason.

There are politicians and other public voices who are urging drastic action in response to climate change, but those are policy prescriptions, not scientific conclusions. Such prescriptions may or may not be related to scientific fact. Many on this thread don't like those politicians, and are wagging the dog by drawing scientific conclusions opposite from the ones the politicians claim to rely on.

Personally, whatever "solution" is primarily an engineering one. At the end of the day, 8 billion people are going to consume a lot of energy, and it has to come from somewhere. Any solution will have environmental impact, the task is generating the necessary energy while minimizing the negative externalities. No political wrangling required, but a lot of hard work and ingenuity!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,132 Posts
Personally, whatever "solution" is primarily an engineering one.
On this we can agree 100%. Humans have always solved pressing problems by coming up with new technologies. Flint-napped spear-points replaced sharpened sticks at about the time climate change was making it harder to find game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
I love this thread. You come back after a few days, there are more posts but the two sides are still arguing the same things. More fun than a day at the county fair.....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
I love this thread. You come back after a few days, there are more posts but the two sides are still arguing the same things. More fun than a day at the county fair.....
But on the unaltered data side, it keeps getting more convincing.
Only one climate history and one explanation--orbital mechanics now supplemented by Svensmark and Shaviv's work on cosmic rays.
Hottest July 18 Day in Western States:

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/07/july-18-1936-hottest-day-on-record-in-the-western-us/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,132 Posts
@6alfas & @rcss You are under no obligation to come here and your absence is in no way missed. This thread has been going on for quite some time and, while it has waxed and waned, the discourse has generally been rather civil . . . and interesting enough to generate fairly constant dialogue. Since freedom of expression is something we should all value, that in itself ought to be enough to justify its continuation. Nonetheless, if the existence of this thread is troubling you, I suggest that you exercise your freedom of thought and discretion and simply stay away. As a matter of fact, you'd probably feel a lot better if you just pretended that we were not here. That shouldn't be all that hard to do because you sort of have to look for this forum in order to find this thread. All the best.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
I've been asking the climate deniers for months to post peer reviewed research supporting their conclusions, or at least post peer-reviewed research they disagree with coupled with specific objections.

Alas, all I get are blogs (usually the same one over and over), editorials, and rants about politicians. Don't claim one side of a political divide is ignoring science if you are unwilling to engage in the science yourself.
I posted a link with straight up data.
Liberals going on about "peer review" is some kind of an attempt at propaganda.
I just rely upon my own research.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
675 Posts
I’ve tried real hard to stay out of this discussion, but am compelled to weigh in today because I hate seeing people I like and generally respect citing pseudo-science and buying into mythology being promoted by some.

As background, I’ve been working as an environmental professional since 1973, focusing on various aspects of marine and freshwater aquatic environments. Early in my career I collected water and air temperature data on NOAA ships working from the Atlantic coast to Alaska and the far Pacific. Most of my work in the past 35 years has been for commercial airports, port authorities and private industry, and often employing computer models that incorporate weather as an influencing factor. I work with other environmental professionals in commercial, government and research sectors who are dealing with this issue, from the basic science to planning and designing infrastructure for the extreme conditions we’ll be seeing in the future. My opinions on this topic are based on both my experience and knowledge of the data and science. Based on that, there is no doubt in my mind (or those of essentially all folks who work with climate change issues) that humans are a major driving factor behind the rapid climate changes we are experiencing.

What moved me to post is this science-based analysis of an article that Fox News claims to prove that humans aren’t a factor. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

Please read this analysis before citing the Fox News claim, because it is demonstrably incorrect and you run the risk of embarrassing yourself.

If you’re seriously interested in learning more about the science of climate change and how humanity is driving it, there is a vast amount of solid information available. PM me and I’ll be happy to direct you to some very digestible scientific references aimed at the non- or semi-technical reader.

If you think its all a conspiracy or want to tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about, please refrain and I won’t insult you for being misled by the same folks and institutions who told us DDT and tobacco are good for us (seriously).

I’m getting back to the intricacies of keeping Alfas alive and how we love them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,752 Posts
@6alfas & @rcss You are under no obligation to come here and your absence is in no way missed. This thread has been going on for quite some time and, while it has waxed and waned, the discourse has generally been rather civil . . . and interesting enough to generate fairly constant dialogue. Since freedom of expression is something we should all value, that in itself ought to be enough to justify its continuation. Nonetheless, if the existence of this thread is troubling you, I suggest that you exercise your freedom of thought and discretion and simply stay away. As a matter of fact, you'd probably feel a lot better if you just pretended that we were not here. That shouldn't be all that hard to do because you sort of have to look for this forum in order to find this thread. All the best.

@180OUT My point is neither side is convincing the other side of anything at this point. I guess my comment troubled you even though you say "freedom of expression is something we should all value."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,596 Posts
Beautiful!

Problem is, so many previous opinions have worked out to be complete hooey.....

Whom should we trust? Al Gore? Bill Nye (he is after all "the science guy"? Computer models?
All are no longer credible.

You seem like a nice guy and all, but why are you more credible than all of the others who made a guess about the future?
 

Attachments

2721 - 2740 of 2929 Posts
Top