# Friday's for future?



## Lemonbaby (Oct 3, 2019)

As this topic and Greta are all over the news in Germany, just wanted to know what's happening elsewhere. Is that a thing in the US?


----------



## Randy (Oct 3, 2019)

My recollection was that Greta led one or two school strikes here in the US and there's some grassroots rumblings going on, but it hasn't coalesced into a legitimate movement here, as of yet.

Not knocking this country or any level of conservatism at all, but we're in a particularly stubborn time in this country. Not dragging guns into it but you see something like Sandy Hook where kindergartners are mowed down and there are direct actions that can be taken and... nothing. In fact, the reverberations that it was made up TO take guns or rights away lasted longer than any air of responsibility to take action to fix it.

And that's how we react to destructive things that kill people right there in front of our face on a daily basis.

Al Gore made some mileage off of "An Inconvenient Truth" but it was shortlived. The cottage industry that popped up surrounding climate change denial gets more press than ACTUAL climate science. It's anti-intellectualism, essentially. Anti-common sense. The concept of taking action now, to save the world 100 or even 10 years from now is an absolute non-starter here ATM.


----------



## Adieu (Oct 3, 2019)

Lemonbaby said:


> As this topic and Greta are all over the news in Germany, just wanted to know what's happening elsewhere. Is that a thing in the US?




Please elaborate. I have no idea what you're talking about


----------



## Lemonbaby (Oct 4, 2019)

Adieu said:


> Please elaborate. I have no idea what you're talking about


Question answered... 

If this wasn't a joke: Greta Thunberg is a teenager from Scandinavia who started protesting against the climate change not being taken seriously by todays politics. This got bigger and bigger and caused a wave of protests across Germany where students skipped school on fridays to join protest marches. She actually held many public speeches across Europe and just recently at the United Nations Climate Action Summit. Unfortunately, it all seems a little orchestrated by her parents and sometimes not really arguments-driven. However, the debate in general needed to be started and at least climate topics got a higher priority in most European governments.


----------



## Adieu (Oct 4, 2019)

Didn't really know, no

Although my dad HAS been mumbling puzzling stuff like "protest my azz, teens just wanna ditch school and get attention" a lot, lately


----------



## sleewell (Oct 4, 2019)

here in america we are just trying to destroy the world as fast as we can. science is a myth, all we care about is short term dollars.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Oct 4, 2019)

Adieu said:


> Please elaborate. I have no idea what you're talking about


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 4, 2019)

Strange times we're living in!


----------



## zappatton2 (Oct 4, 2019)

What does taking the science of climate change seriously have to do with the nazis, exactly? Especially when the anti-science populist crowd is often the most receptive to, you know, _actual _nazis??


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 4, 2019)

Because no science is ever settled or absolute. The girl is being used as a vehicle mouth. She is like the children that become spiritual healers


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 4, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> Because no science is ever settled or absolute.



But there can be a _consensus_.


----------



## Drew (Oct 8, 2019)

Lemonbaby said:


> Question answered...
> 
> If this wasn't a joke: Greta Thunberg is a teenager from Scandinavia who started protesting against the climate change not being taken seriously by todays politics. This got bigger and bigger and caused a wave of protests across Germany where students skipped school on fridays to join protest marches. She actually held many public speeches across Europe and just recently at the United Nations Climate Action Summit. Unfortunately, it all seems a little orchestrated by her parents and sometimes not really arguments-driven. However, the debate in general needed to be started and at least climate topics got a higher priority in most European governments.


There was a large scale school walkout/protest a few weeks ago, and at least here in the liberal northeast semi-blessed by school districts, but it hasn't been an ongoing thing where every friday students walk out. 


Darchetype said:


> Because no science is ever settled or absolute. The girl is being used as a vehicle mouth. She is like the children that become spiritual healers


Yeah, I'm not sure where you're going with this. The scientific consensus is that climate change IS happening, and that humanity is responsible (primarily through CO2 emissions). Where there is disagreement is mostly on how to model the effect, which to be fair is a fiendishly difficult thing to do. The American right likes to point to this as evidence the science is far from conclusive, but that's kind of disingenuous - it's like pointing to the various different models attempting to project the path of a hurricane, and from the fact they don't all agree concluding that hurricanes don't exist. It doesn't work that way.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 8, 2019)

Drew said:


> it's like pointing to the various different models attempting to project the path of a hurricane, and from the fact they don't all agree concluding that hurricanes don't exist. It doesn't work that way.



Or insisting that a hurricane (Dorian) hitting the east coast will greatly impact Alabama.


----------



## Drew (Oct 8, 2019)

tedtan said:


> Or insisting that a hurricane (Dorian) hitting the east coast will greatly impact Alabama.


LISTEN, LOTS OF PEOPLE SAID THAT THE HURRICANE WILL GREATLY IMPACT ALABAMA, THATS WHAT THE HEAVY BLACK LINE ON THE CHART THAT WAS DEFINITELY NOT SHARPIE INDICATED, HOW GREAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WERE SAYING ALABAMA WOULD BE GREATLY IMPACTED! LOW ENERGY NOAA IS TREASONOUS AND REMEMBER THE GOOD OLD DAYS WHEN WE WERE STRONGER, WHAT WE USED TO DO WITH TRAITORS?


----------



## TheKindred (Oct 8, 2019)

this may be a more suitable way to get the message across on this forum:


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 9, 2019)

Drew said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure where you're going with this.



I didn't want to go into the whole climate thing, I am just addressing the girl. She is being used as the mouth piece for fear mongering and shame/guilt tripping/virtue signaling, because she is a kid and apparently kids know better and we should listen to kids. (In this situation she is just parroting).

But just because a bunch of people have come to a consensus, it doesn't mean we should stop research there since consensus doesn't mean that it's the truth. The way I look at it is that in real science real inquiry and real investigation into the truth, there is no room for consensus.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 9, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> The way I look at it is that in real science real inquiry and real investigation into the truth, there is no room for consensus.



That's not how any of this works.


----------



## Drew (Oct 9, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> I didn't want to go into the whole climate thing, I am just addressing the girl. She is being used as the mouth piece for fear mongering and shame/guilt tripping/virtue signaling, because she is a kid and apparently kids know better and we should listen to kids. (In this situation she is just parroting).
> 
> But just because a bunch of people have come to a consensus, it doesn't mean we should stop research there since consensus doesn't mean that it's the truth. The way I look at it is that in real science real inquiry and real investigation into the truth, there is no room for consensus.


Hey, I've got no problem with research trying to prove that climate change is either not happening, or isn't man-made, for the simple reason that if scientists were of this mindset, that would be the fastest way to shut them up, when they were forced to either accept their null hypothesis or get _real_ lax about p-values. The problem though is this isn't scientists saying we need to fund more research to disprove climate change science, it's politicians, and mostly American ones at that, and I don't think anyone trusts any of them as far as they can be thrown when it comes to not just blindly holding onto priors.  

And just because she's a 16 year old kid doesn't mean she's some sort of puppet. She's a young girl who single-handedly started a pretty massive social movement. Unless you've got some evidence of, oh, Soros having her on payroll and slipping her scripts now and then, I don't really see why you're having such a hard time believing a 16 year old can think for herself.


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 9, 2019)

Drew said:


> that would be the fastest way to shut them up,



That's just my point, when the minority, non-funded scientists come out with "opposing" data, they and their data are the ones being shut up, or else we would hear more about it. (I dont have names and numbers off the top of my head, and I dont want to start a war of throwing numbers and charts at each other).

I dont have a hard time believeing that a 16 year old girl can think for herself...but if you stop for a second and think about it, there is a reason that she is plastered all over the media. Her 15 minutes should have been 15 minutes. The media should have said "well here is this young girl getting involved in politics, she is getting other kids her age involved and has a following. Isn't that nice? Now back to Jim for the weather". They should have left it at that. If there are 16 year old kids who are involved politically, and have opposite view points as her, and also have a following, why arent they being plastered on the news?

Ultimately she is being used to fear monger, shame and guilt trip everybody. And her demeanor and delivery is perfect for that. Also she can think for herself, but that doesn't mean she knows. She is yelling at people based on a consensus that she herself couldnt have come to


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 9, 2019)

Fuck off MetalHex.


----------



## StevenC (Oct 9, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> a consensus that she herself couldnt have come to


It's almost like you don't know what that word means.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 9, 2019)

StevenC said:


> It's almost like you don't know what that word means.



MetalHex confirmed.


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 9, 2019)

StevenC said:


> It's almost like you don't know what that word means.


Yeah she can come to a consensus but it's based on other peoples data. It's not like she was in the field collecting and analyzing data herself. So shes preaching like she knows it's its the truth.


----------



## narad (Oct 9, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> That's just my point, when the minority, non-funded scientists come out with "opposing" data, they and their data are the ones being shut up, or else we would hear more about it. (I dont have names and numbers off the top of my head, and I dont want to start a war of throwing numbers and charts at each other).



MetalHex confirmed.



Darchetype said:


> Yeah she can come to a consensus but it's based on other peoples data. It's not like she was in the field collecting and analyzing data herself. So shes preaching like she knows it's its the truth.



Lol, better to be out on a guitar forum posting an opinion based on other peoples data _that doesn't even exist_, preaching like they know it's the truth.


----------



## zappatton2 (Oct 9, 2019)

It should be mentioned that pure science follows the evidence. It can entertain multiple hypothesis when there are large gaps in knowledge that require scientifically informed speculation. But as gaps in that knowledge fill in, the path between cause and effect becomes much clearer and better defined. There's a point where you set aside the random speculation and build on the knowledge you've accumulated.

We are affecting the climate dramatically. It is a serious issue, likely the most serious issue. And the youth and future generations will bear the brunt of it. Of anyone, I can't think of a generation who should be more invested in the future, we can't survive on the ingrained nostalgia of my generation.


----------



## Drew (Oct 10, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> That's just my point, when the minority, non-funded scientists come out with "opposing" data, they and their data are the ones being shut up, or else we would hear more about it. (I dont have names and numbers off the top of my head, and I dont want to start a war of throwing numbers and charts at each other).
> 
> I dont have a hard time believeing that a 16 year old girl can think for herself...but if you stop for a second and think about it, there is a reason that she is plastered all over the media. Her 15 minutes should have been 15 minutes. The media should have said "well here is this young girl getting involved in politics, she is getting other kids her age involved and has a following. Isn't that nice? Now back to Jim for the weather". They should have left it at that. If there are 16 year old kids who are involved politically, and have opposite view points as her, and also have a following, why arent they being plastered on the news?
> 
> Ultimately she is being used to fear monger, shame and guilt trip everybody. And her demeanor and delivery is perfect for that. Also she can think for herself, but that doesn't mean she knows. She is yelling at people based on a consensus that she herself couldnt have come to


I mean, there's one fundamental problem with everything you're saying here. 

To all practical extents and purposes, there is no "minority" of scientists working independently and claiming global man-made climate change is a hoax. There have been virtually no peer-reviewed scientific publications concluding man-made climate change was NOT happening - as of 2013, 0.7% of peer-reviewed publications concluded man-made factors were not to blame, while 0.3% were uncertain about the cause. That percentage has been declining over time, and 1% of the scientific community coming to some other conclusion is pretty consistent with using a realistic p-value for statistical tests - you SHOULD get occasional-yet-rare false positives in statistical analysis. If that "minority" runs beyond statistical noise, at that point you should get concerned. 

The most disingenuous part of this whole discussion, honestly, is that there's somehow "two sides." The scientific method starts by accepting the null hypothesis - that climate change is NOT occurring due to man-made factors. To publish a paper concluding it is happening, you go about trying to prove that it _isn't_. 97% of scientists trying to do this are unable to do so, and in turn have to reject the null hypothesis and accept the hypothesis that man-made factors are in play. This is elementary school scientific process stuff. There is no "silenced minority" here.

The reason we don't give equal attention to 16 year olds with opposite points of view is that we as a society don't equate ignorance with expertise. We don't give a platform to poorly-informed individuals who are flat-out wrong, to allow them to spread disinformation. That's a _good_ thing. 

And again, with no evidence, you keep insisting she's being "used." Put up or shut up.


----------



## StevenC (Oct 10, 2019)

Drew said:


> I mean, there's one fundamental problem with everything you're saying here.
> 
> To all practical extents and purposes, there is no "minority" of scientists working independently and claiming global man-made climate change is a hoax. There have been virtually no peer-reviewed scientific publications concluding man-made climate change was NOT happening - as of 2013, 0.7% of peer-reviewed publications concluded man-made factors were not to blame, while 0.3% were uncertain about the cause. That percentage has been declining over time, and 1% of the scientific community coming to some other conclusion is pretty consistent with using a realistic p-value for statistical tests - you SHOULD get occasional-yet-rare false positives in statistical analysis. If that "minority" runs beyond statistical noise, at that point you should get concerned.
> 
> ...


If I were in charge of this forum I'd have made a sticky thread in P&CE with a Stats 101 course inside.


----------



## Drew (Oct 10, 2019)

StevenC said:


> If I were in charge of this forum I'd have made a sticky thread in P&CE with a Stats 101 course inside.


I used to be, you know. Sometimes I wish I'd never stepped down.


----------



## jaxadam (Oct 10, 2019)

Drew said:


> I used to be, you know. Sometimes I wish I'd never stepped down.



Well, I can be your campaign manager. We’ll take this thing home in 2020. 

Vote for Drew P&CE Super Moderator!


----------



## Drew (Oct 10, 2019)

That's the LAST thing this place needs.  I don't have time for it these days anyway, to be perfectly honest. One site is enough.


----------



## Mathemagician (Oct 10, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> I didn't want to go into the whole climate thing, I am just addressing the girl. She is being used as the mouth piece for fear mongering and shame/guilt tripping/virtue signaling, because she is a kid and apparently kids know better and we should listen to kids. (In this situation she is just parroting).
> 
> But just because a bunch of people have come to a consensus, it doesn't mean we should stop research there since consensus doesn't mean that it's the truth. The way I look at it is that in real science real inquiry and real investigation into the truth, there is no room for consensus.



Consensus IS science. 

Gravity is explained by Einstein’s THEORY of General Relativity. 

Man, sometimes you just can’t take fundamentalists anywhere nice. Basically because they believe everything their chosen book says verbatim, it allows them to ignore science because science is and always has been “group consensus”. 

In other words: she personally may be repeating what she’s told. But what’s she’s told to say is accurate based on the entire body of climate science. 

Excluding reports commissioned by major polluters and interest groups. 

Publicly funded research all arrives at the same premise. 

Unless you are an illiterate who refuses to admit that the world’s scientific community may know more than you on the subject they’ve studied their entire careers. 

I cannot imagine saying “competition brings prices down” and having someone argue with me and say “I believe that economic theory can’t be verified and therefore isn’t valid”. 

Funny, fundamentalists don’t argue with economists or money managers. That entire field is based on assumptions and theory.


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 10, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> Ultimately she is being used to fear monger, shame and guilt trip everybody.





Drew said:


> you keep insisting she's being "used."





Mathemagician said:


> In other words: she personally may be repeating what she’s told.



That is my main point. She is being used. It's very Hitler-esque. I dont know where you're getting this "fundamentalist" nonsense from.


----------



## jaxadam (Oct 10, 2019)

Drew said:


> That's the LAST thing this place needs.  I don't have time for it these days anyway, to be perfectly honest. One site is enough.



No one runs campaigns like me. I run the best campaigns. I'll run a campaign so good it will make your head spin.


----------



## MFB (Oct 10, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> That is my main point. *She is being used*. I dont know where you're getting this "fundamentalist" nonsense from.



Show.
Us.
The.
Proof.


----------



## Drew (Oct 10, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> That is my main point. She is being used. It's very Hitler-esque. I dont know where you're getting this "fundamentalist" nonsense from.


Again: 


Drew said:


> And again, with no evidence, you keep insisting she's being "used." Put up or shut up.


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 10, 2019)

This is not proof, this is not even evidence, it is just a meme. But it is one that demonstrates the striking similarity between the propaganda techniques that the Nazi's used to fear monger. Combine that with her delivery, and that's why I said the whole technique is very "Hitler-esque".


----------



## Mathemagician (Oct 10, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> That is my main point. She is being used. It's very Hitler-esque. I dont know where you're getting this "fundamentalist" nonsense from.




How is that what you are taking away? 

This is from someone giving a presentation saying “we have destroyed coral reefs, we are burning the Amazon, oceans are rising, average global temps are increasing annually, and ice shelves have melted that won’t be coming back.”

And you have been convinced to focus on WHO sent the message rather than the message itself?

You. You are the fundamentalist.


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 10, 2019)

Mathemagician said:


> How is that what you are taking away?
> 
> This is from someone giving a presentation saying “we have destroyed coral reefs, we are burning the Amazon, oceans are rising, average global temps are increasing annually, and ice shelves have melted that won’t be coming back.”
> 
> ...


Not WHO. HOW.


----------



## StevenC (Oct 10, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> This is not proof, this is not even evidence, it is just a meme. But it is one that demonstrates the striking similarity between the propaganda techniques that the Nazi's used to fear monger. Combine that with her delivery, and that's why I said the whole technique is very "Hitler-esque".
> View attachment 73473


Holy shit it actually is MetalHex.


----------



## Drew (Oct 10, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> This is not proof, this is not even evidence, it is just a meme. But it is one that demonstrates the striking similarity between the propaganda techniques that the Nazi's used to fear monger. Combine that with her delivery, and that's why I said the whole technique is very "Hitler-esque".
> View attachment 73473


Seriously? This is the strength of your argument?

This is a watercolor painting by Hitler, who was an aspiring painter before he was an aspiring dictator.









This is Disneyworld





*OMG MICKEY MOUSE IS BEING USED WALT DISNEY IS A FEARMONGERER BAN FROZEN ITS JUST NAZI PROPHAGANDA!!!!!!!*

Seriously man. If you're going to make wild accusations like "Greta Thunberg is being used" then it's going to take a little more than a meme to be taken seriously here. This isn't 4chan.



StevenC said:


> Holy shit it actually is MetalHex.


Their idea of what constitutes evidence is almost identical, no? I'd be curious to see an IP address.


----------



## vilk (Oct 10, 2019)

Drew said:


> Seriously? This is the strength of your argument?
> 
> This is a watercolor painting by Hitler, who was an aspiring painter before he was an aspiring dictator.
> 
> ...



I think you're forgetting that MetalHex is a conspiracy theorist who I'd bet dollars to donuts already believed that Disney cartoons are Nazi propaganda.


----------



## Mathemagician (Oct 10, 2019)

God. Imagine being the kind of person that willfully ignores all reputable scientific research, but thinks they’re “on to something” that Facebook memes says is true.


----------



## MFB (Oct 10, 2019)

Drew said:


> This is a watercolor painting by Hitler, who was an aspiring painter before he was an aspiring dictator..



Coincidentally, it's also where my brother proposed to his girlfriend (now wife) when he was stationed in Germany. Therefore, that can only mean, my brother is the second coming of Hitler.

...I think


----------



## jaxadam (Oct 10, 2019)

Mathemagician said:


> God. Imagine being the kind of person that willfully ignores all reputable scientific research, but thinks they’re “on to something” that Facebook memes says is true.



Don’t shatter my reality... it’s already very fragile.


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 10, 2019)

I'd like to know how one goes through their life taking everything at face value, and never questioning the status quo. Never wondering, who is doing the private funding? Where is the money coming from? Do the funders have an agenda? Who is collecting the data? Who is analyzing the data?

I've heard some compelling theories that are against human-caused global warming, by lesser known researchers, authors, histortians. But of course, theories will remain theories without the funding.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...pzjC08KGPuAWpQ-VZaezckk5RLP2GfyZWUgJlg7OQU_WY
Here is an excellent peer reviewed scientifc paper written by the great Ralph Ellis with over 13,000 downloads so far.


----------



## jaxadam (Oct 10, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> I'd like to know how one goes through their life taking everything at face value, and never questioning the status quo. Never wondering, who is doing the private funding? Where is the money coming from? Do the funders have an agenda? Who is collecting the data? Who is analyzing the data?
> 
> I've heard some compelling theories that are against human-caused global warming, by lesser known researchers, authors, histortians. But of course, theories will remain theories without the funding. Those people should get funding too.
> 
> ...



There are two days that are not 24 hours. The day you’re born and the day you die.


----------



## StevenC (Oct 10, 2019)

jaxadam said:


> There are two days that are not 24 hours. The day you’re born and the day you die.


On the 26th June 2010 I woke up at 3am UK time and drove to the airport. There I took a flight to New York, and two connections to get to Arizona. Since Arizona is 7 hours behind the UK and I didn't go to sleep until 11pm local time, I was awake for 27 hours that day.


Darchetype said:


> I've heard some compelling theories that are against human-caused global warming, by lesser known researchers, authors, histortians. But of course, theories will remain theories without the funding.


No you haven't. Also, that's not what the word theory means. You're looking for hypothesis. Only mathematicians get to look down on "theories" because they're the only ones with anything better.

You know you're allowed to go out and read scientific papers on the subject and see if the science being done checks out? It's not like they lock it away from the nonscientific community. You're able to analyse their data and methods. I'm sure you don't know how, and that's why you're asking dumb questions, but the information is available.


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 10, 2019)

StevenC said:


> You know you're allowed to go out and read scientific papers on the subject


Yeah. Like the one I posted. You're either the fastest reader in the world or you didn't even look at it.


----------



## jaxadam (Oct 10, 2019)

StevenC said:


> On the 26th June 2010 I woke up at 3am UK time and drove to the airport. There I took a flight to New York, and two connections to get to Arizona. Since Arizona is 7 hours behind the UK and I didn't go to sleep until 11pm local time, I was awake for 27 hours that day.



Yeah but that doesn’t count.


----------



## jaxadam (Oct 10, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> Yeah. Like the one I posted. You're either the fastest reader in the world or you didn't even look at it.



I read it, and I have to say... that shit was pretty cool! No pun intended...


----------



## StevenC (Oct 10, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> Yeah. Like the one I posted. You're either the fastest reader in the world or you didn't even look at it.


Honestly if that's your response, you need to go back and reread Drew's post about statistics, because you clearly didn't understand it.


----------



## spudmunkey (Oct 10, 2019)

That study from Ralph Ellis, though, does not talk at all about CO2 in global warming. Instead, it solely focused on levels of CO2 and how they relate to the terminations of ice ages, regionally. Saying this somehow invalidates anything about the scientific consensus of man-made effects on the global climate, is incorrect.


----------



## narad (Oct 11, 2019)

I love how dudes like MetalHex don't understand the unfalsifiability of their position. If all science pointed away from man-made climate change, they'd cite that. If not, they'd cite how the evidence would point to that, if only these "lesser known" researchers with theories to the contrary were given proper funding. Everything can fall under that banner. 

Do you believe the Loch Ness monster is alive and well, a prehistoric beast that skipped out on mass extinction in some sort of underwater haven? Well, we'd know that for a fact, if only we were funding the scientists to perform that research instead of accepting literally every piece of earth and biological science to point to the contrary...

But yea, it also shows a lack of understanding of how things work in academia. It would be amazeballs to publish a rock-solid sensible report that could refute man-made climate change and the projections of where things are headed under our current trajectory. Press, tenure, funding. Proving people wrong / furthering the understanding of the community is how academic careers progress. It is researchers' best interests to pursue research along the contentious lines. That is precisely why it's a big deal when a huge community reaches the level of consensus that exists on the topic of climate change.


----------



## StevenC (Oct 11, 2019)

Also, how the anti man made climate change guys can't get funding is beyond me, when you've got the coal industry, the oil industry and the natural gas industry. You'd think those multi billion dollar, global industries could get the science done right, when tiny companies like Monsanto are able to. You'd think they could talk to some of the big pharma guys to see how they managed to kill the vaccine autism thing. Heck the US government is currently run by the climate denialist party.

But yeah, it's a lack of funding.


----------



## narad (Oct 11, 2019)

StevenC said:


> Also, how the anti man made climate change guys can't get funding is beyond me, when you've got the coal industry, the oil industry and the natural gas industry. You'd think those multi billion dollar, global industries could get the science done right, when tiny companies like Monsanto are able to. You'd think they could talk to some of the big pharma guys to see how they managed to kill the vaccine autism thing. Heck the US government is currently run by the climate denialist party.
> 
> But yeah, it's a lack of funding.



When you'd rather put millions of dollars into lobbying for political influence instead of research that has the potential to support your side of the argument, that should say something.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 11, 2019)

Aissur said:


> Umm tiny companies like Monsanto? This proves you have no idea what you are talking about.



All things are relative.

ExxonMobil isn't even in the top three biggest oil companies and they absolutely dwarf Monsanto, which isn't even a company anymore (purchased by Bayer last year). 

Heck, ExxonMobil is almost three times bigger (assets) than Bayer. 

If you look at the Fortune 500 list, petrochem makes up almost 1/5th of the top 25 (ExxonMobil is at 2{Fortune doesn't track state owned oil companies like SaudiAramco}), and over 1/10th of the list overall. 

As stated above, the reason these absolute mammoths of industry don't sponsor research is because they tried that and the outcomes were either a) counter to their interest or b) so poorly done that they were almost instantly discredited for poor methodology, poor data, or couldn't be independently verified.


----------



## StevenC (Oct 11, 2019)

Aissur said:


> Umm tiny companies like Monsanto? This proves you have no idea what you are talking about.


Hello person whose thoughts on the interaction between science and industry get as nuanced as "monsanto=bad"


----------



## vilk (Oct 11, 2019)

Aissur said:


> Oh yes. Monsanto has done wonders for the earth and nature in general. I love my food supply GMO’d. Science!


You're literally fulfilling his mockery of your reasoning ability.


----------



## Drew (Oct 11, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> I'd like to know how one goes through their life taking everything at face value, and never questioning the status quo. Never wondering, who is doing the private funding? Where is the money coming from? Do the funders have an agenda? Who is collecting the data? Who is analyzing the data?
> 
> I've heard some compelling theories that are against human-caused global warming, by lesser known researchers, authors, histortians. But of course, theories will remain theories without the funding.
> 
> ...


I question plenty of things. I stop questioning something when I find enough evidence to convince me I was wrong to question them.

You, meanwhile, are making increasingly more desperate and last-ditch arguments that climate change is false and Greta Thunberg is being used by some nefarious climate change cartel. Anyone who disagrees with YOU accepts ideas blindly and can't ask questions on their own. Thunberg is being used, because she's nordic and blond and only 16, so Nazis. Just because we don't hold _your_ ignorance as equally valid as the damn-near-universal consensus of the highly educated, extremely knowledgable, and extensively researched scientific community is proof we take everything at "face value,"

You also evidently don't understand the word "theory" in the context of science.

But, hey, if you want to talk about conspiracies and private funding and follow the money, I've got one for you - have you ever considered the possibility that all of these anti-climate-change researchers you seem to have found, are being funded by a giant and shadowy cartel of _corporations_, who are hell bent on injecting just enough perceived uncertainty into the "debate" around climate change to make it a bona-fide debate between two sides, one of idiots and the other hard science, so as they can continue to go on trashing the environment unfettered making extremely large amounts of money doing so? Where is the money coming from? Do these corporations have an agenda? Who is collecting the data? Who is analyzing the data?!?

You're not even denying this is another account, MetalHex. I seem to recall a few policies around here against creating additional accounts.


----------



## Drew (Oct 11, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> All things are relative.
> 
> ExxonMobil isn't even in the top three biggest oil companies and they absolutely dwarf Monsanto, which isn't even a company anymore (purchased by Bayer last year).
> 
> ...


Nitpicking a little and it's kind of beside the point, but E&P companies like Exxon may have huge _assets_, but they also generally have pretty large _liabilities, _and given that resource extraction comes with it a ton of commodity price risk, trade at relatively lower multiples. As far as publicly traded companies go, Exxon is 10th in the S&P500 by market cap, with most of the companies above them being fairly asset-light companies like tech (Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, etc). The only other E&P company in the top 20 is Chevron at 19th. Top 40, for that matter. Energy as a whole makes up less than 5% of the index. 

Doesn't really change anything we're saying here, but just as sort of a general comment. Exxon is still larger than Bayer.


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 11, 2019)

StevenC said:


> Also, how the anti man made climate change guys can't get funding is beyond me, when you've got the coal industry, the oil industry and the natural gas industry.


That's a fair point.


----------



## Drew (Oct 11, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> That's a fair point.


Exxon had, as of 6/30, most recent data they publish, $4.3 billion in cash and cash equivalents on their balance sheet. Chevron had $8.6 billion. There is NO shortage of money out there in the hands of companies that would stand to make a LOT of money if they could prove that CO2 emissions were not responsible for climate change. And yet, only 0.7% of peer reviewed studies came to that conclusion in a review of all published literature on the subject in 2013. Makes you wonder, no?


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 11, 2019)

Drew said:


> Exxon had, as of 6/30, most recent data they publish, $4.3 billion in cash and cash equivalents on their balance sheet. Chevron had $8.6 billion. There is NO shortage of money out there in the hands of companies that would stand to make a LOT of money if they could prove that CO2 emissions were not responsible for climate change. And yet, only 0.7% of peer reviewed studies came to that conclusion in a review of all published literature on the subject in 2013. Makes you wonder, no?


Perhaps. But my main point still goes back to the figurehead that is this girl, and the commanding of the crowd consesus strategy being used here. Like we should all be drenched in shame, guilt, and sorrow, simply for living, and driving cars to work, and farting, and not having a plan for stopping this "global warming", YESTERDAY. (Like anyone can just stop it). Like, if we don't "stop global warming" right now, the whole world is going to be under water in 12 years because plastic straws. Can we just stop with those absolutely outlandish types of claims?


----------



## Drew (Oct 11, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> Perhaps. But my main point still goes back to the figurehead that is this girl, and the commanding of the crowd consesus strategy being used here. Like we should all be drenched in shame, guilt, and sorrow, simply for living, and driving cars to work, and farting, and not having a plan for stopping this "global warming", YESTERDAY.... (Like anyone can just stop it). Like, if we don't "stop global warming" right now, the whole world is going to be under water in 12 years because plastic straws. Can we just stop with those absolutely outlandish claims?


And MY main point is you keep making this argument, with no more basis than a single internet meme, and keep pushing climate change denialism like it's some sort of evil conspiracy, rather than the result of taking the scientific method to its logical conclusion. 

I'm sorry if more than 97% of scientific papers agree that CO2 emissions resulting from human activity is something that makes you uncomfortable. Do you need a safe space? Did the little Swedish girl make feel bad?


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 11, 2019)

Drew said:


> And MY main point is you keep making this argument, with no more basis than a single internet meme, and keep pushing climate change denialism like it's some sort of evil conspiracy, rather than the result of taking the scientific method to its logical conclusion.
> 
> I'm sorry if more than 97% of scientific papers agree that CO2 emissions resulting from human activity is something that makes you uncomfortable. Do you need a safe space? Did the little Swedish girl make feel bad?


Man made climate change may in fact be real. I do not know. But apparently you are the one that feels bad when you can't even address my post about the mongering and childish "doomsday decade" claims. Next.


----------



## Adieu (Oct 11, 2019)

Drew said:


> Seriously? This is the strength of your argument?
> 
> This is a watercolor painting by Hitler, who was an aspiring painter before he was an aspiring dictator.
> 
> ...



Wasn't that just a picture of Neuschwanstein?

It's a knockoff castle built in the 19th century as an amusement park for Bavarian royals.... it WAS the original Disneyland, and has sh!t-all to do with Hitler. He just thought it looked cool. And the Disney people agreed.


----------



## Mathemagician (Oct 11, 2019)

The reason that the claims are “doomsday-ish” is because even as early as the 70’s science and engineering majors were learning about global temperature changes. 

In the 90’s models showed that we would have serious problems by the 2050’s but it was “so far away so who cares”. 

But every single year change has accelerated. So more damage is done in a year than in the year before it. It’s non-linear damage. 

So now models are showing huge fucking global greenhouse level problems as early as the 2030’s. 

Only it’s not 1990 anymore, it’s 2020. And kids today who are 16 will only be 26. 

And politicians in the largest countries in the world with the highest levels of pollution have done nowhere near enough. And at this stage no one is even denying the damage anymore. The decision makers know they will never be held accountable. 

Because “my unlimited economic growth” and “I need a good stock market for my election cycle” and “Oil and Gas lobbying money pays for my campaign”. 

And somehow, uneducated people who do not in any way understand science, the global climate, the self-perpetuating negative feedback loop that is the effect of greenhouse gasses have decided that they will vote to support anyone who denies science and global consensus.

Worst case we make the world nicer for future people. Best case is we prevent the disasters climate models suggest are rapidly approaching. 

Do you know how much of the US coastline would be rearranged if global ocean levels rose 10ft? 40 ft? 

Do you know how unlivable certain parts of the world become if the temperature rise 2 or more degrees Celsius? 

Look it up because I’m not paid to be your fucking teacher.


----------



## Darchetype (Oct 11, 2019)

Man they got to you real good! I bet you're one of those southern Nebraska doomsday preppers with an underground bunker stocked with 900 boxes of Spaghettio's and diapers.


----------



## narad (Oct 11, 2019)

Man, I stumbled upon this today in a completely apolitical context:






Creepy.


----------



## Adieu (Oct 11, 2019)

It's a conspiracy!




Trump thinks the Democrats will drown first!!!

PS he might be right


----------



## narad (Oct 11, 2019)

Adieu said:


> It's a conspiracy!
> 
> View attachment 73530
> 
> ...



True, but there goes the GDP.

Who am I kidding...we'd all just move to Austin/Boulder anyway.


----------



## Mathemagician (Oct 12, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> Man they got to you real good! I bet you're one of those southern Nebraska doomsday preppers with an underground bunker stocked with 900 boxes of Spaghettio's and diapers.



I’m not commenting in an attempt to try to “convince” a troll like you. I can’t even say for sure if you believe the stuff you post or “just like getting a rise out of them internet people”. 

But just in case someone out there is unfamiliar on the subject I’m commenting in the hopes that maybe they as someone who normally does not pay attention to politics maybe has their interest piqued and then goes off to do their own research. 

Because all reputable publicly funded research points to the same conclusions.

I don’t have to worry about being “proven wrong”.


----------



## iamaom (Oct 13, 2019)

narad said:


> True, but there goes the GDP.
> 
> Who am I kidding...we'd all just move to Austin/Boulder anyway.


As a former Texas resident, I will NOT be moving to roasting hot Austin.


----------



## Drew (Oct 14, 2019)

Darchetype said:


> Man made climate change may in fact be real. I do not know. But apparently you are the one that feels bad when you can't even address my post about the mongering and childish "doomsday decade" claims. Next.


Cool move of the goalposts, bro.


----------

