Author Topic: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.  (Read 31396 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #300 on: August 12, 2023, 11:36:52 am »
What part of this is so difficult? Science has NOTHING to do with skepticism!

Then in the very next sentence:
Quote
If you disagree with another's data, evidence or hypothesis then you put up your own and the competition of that circle is generally to be published and peer reviewed.

That's called being skeptical of their results  :palm:
It's a natural part of the process. You may not call it skepticism, but that's basically what it is. It may be because you happen to already have data that proves otherwise, but (most?) often it's you thinking "Hmm, this doesn't sound right...", a gut feeling, a hunch, hairs on the back your neck, you smell something fishy etc etc. So your inherent questioning/skepticism of those result leads you to do your own further research.
 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo

Offline beanflying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: au
  • Toys so very many Toys.
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #301 on: August 12, 2023, 11:49:57 am »
What part of this is so difficult? Science has NOTHING to do with skepticism!

Then in the very next sentence:
Quote
If you disagree with another's data, evidence or hypothesis then you put up your own and the competition of that circle is generally to be published and peer reviewed.

That's called being skeptical of their results  :palm:
It's a natural part of the process. You may not call it skepticism, but that's basically what it is. It may be because you happen to already have data that proves otherwise, but (most?) often it's you thinking "Hmm, this doesn't sound right...", a gut feeling, a hunch, hairs on the back your neck, you smell something fishy etc etc. So your inherent questioning/skepticism of those result leads you to do your own further research.

How about YOU go look at a definition of the word! It broadly means to 'doubt the 'truth'. It is one step up from some conspiracy nutter with no qualifications in a field making an ambit claim. All to often a negative conclusion is offered up and then someone will try and fake or massage the results to make that conclusion their truth. Again NOT SCIENCE.

Questioning the truth as I stated several posts back is fine and I have zero issues with that but you sure as hell need to be able to back it up with hard fact and evidence and this is in this case Science.

This is where this debate and other like it goes off the rails because of demands that 'my truth' is more powerful than actual Science which remains  :bullshit:

« Last Edit: August 12, 2023, 11:55:02 am by beanflying »
Coffee, Food, R/C and electronics nerd in no particular order. Also CNC wannabe, 3D printer and Laser Cutter Junkie and just don't mention my TEA addiction....
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #302 on: August 12, 2023, 11:52:03 am »
What part of this is so difficult? Science has NOTHING to do with skepticism!

Then in the very next sentence:
Quote
If you disagree with another's data, evidence or hypothesis then you put up your own and the competition of that circle is generally to be published and peer reviewed.

That's called being skeptical of their results  :palm:
It's a natural part of the process. You may not call it skepticism, but that's basically what it is. It may be because you happen to already have data that proves otherwise, but (most?) often it's you thinking "Hmm, this doesn't sound right...", a gut feeling, a hunch, hairs on the back your neck, you smell something fishy etc etc. So your inherent questioning/skepticism of those result leads you to do your own further research.

How about YOU go look at a definition of the word! It broadly means to 'doubt the 'truth'. It is one step up from some conspiracy nutter with no qualifications in a field making an ambit claim.

Questioning the truth as I stated several posts back is fine and I have zero issues wiuth that but you sure as hell need to be able to back it up with hard fact and evidence and this is in this case Science.

This is where this debate and other like it goes off the rails because of demands that 'my truth' is more powerful than actual Science which remains  :bullshit:
Er, no. The usual definition is something like "doubt as to the truth of something". You got it backwards.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #303 on: August 12, 2023, 11:56:10 am »
How about YOU go look at a definition of the word! It broadly means to 'doubt the 'truth'. It is one step up from some conspiracy nutter with no qualifications in a field making an ambit claim.

If you are debating the exact meaing of a word then you have automatically lost the argument. You know very well what I mean.
 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo, RAPo

Offline RAPo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 858
  • Country: nl
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #304 on: August 12, 2023, 11:58:41 am »
There is a difference:

Scepticism is a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma.
This can be an attitude or a way of life.
There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, it can be healthy for progress in science.

This thread seems more about science denial, as the image below indicates.
That image can be applied to both "climate change is induced by (primarily) humans" believers and "climate change is there but not necessarily due to humans (alone)" arguments.

Do the research, don't follow blindly sweeping statements.
 

Offline beanflying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: au
  • Toys so very many Toys.
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #305 on: August 12, 2023, 12:04:22 pm »
And its usage here has been used by posters on multiple occasions as 'definitive proof' of a negative without evidence because of a random web link or someone wrote it down so it must be true.

We don't accept 'free energy' without question because someone rattles off gibberish maths and shows a suspect device so why should we accept non Science here as a 'truth' over what is published and broadly accepted?
Coffee, Food, R/C and electronics nerd in no particular order. Also CNC wannabe, 3D printer and Laser Cutter Junkie and just don't mention my TEA addiction....
 

Offline RAPo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 858
  • Country: nl
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #306 on: August 12, 2023, 12:07:00 pm »
And its usage here has been used by posters on multiple occasions as 'definitive proof' of a negative without evidence because of a random web link or someone wrote it down so it must be true.

We don't accept 'free energy' without question because someone rattles off gibberish maths and shows a suspect device so why should we accept non Science here as a 'truth' over what is published and broadly accepted?
Because there are more than only arguments.  Human behaviour, invested interests, money, common opinion is not always true, silencing unwelcome ideas/facts.
 

Offline beanflying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: au
  • Toys so very many Toys.
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #307 on: August 12, 2023, 12:13:48 pm »
Which is why I raised the question of Judith Curry's views a while back.

'silencing unwelcome ideas/facts' is conspiracy 101 for the negative case and what a huge segment of so called News pushes as 'truth' or 'alternate facts'.

I have no issue with a debate but it needs to be on Scientific merits and a whole lot less of the  :bullshit:
Coffee, Food, R/C and electronics nerd in no particular order. Also CNC wannabe, 3D printer and Laser Cutter Junkie and just don't mention my TEA addiction....
 

Offline RAPo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 858
  • Country: nl
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #308 on: August 12, 2023, 12:35:34 pm »
'silencing unwelcome ideas/facts' is conspiracy 101 for the negative case and what a huge segment of so called News pushes as 'truth' or 'alternate facts'.
Nope, for the "positive" case there is a website that shows different.
And for the negative case, there is a dutch news site that does not allow allow climate denial within the response section, regardless the arguments.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2023, 12:39:36 pm by RAPo »
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #309 on: August 12, 2023, 12:36:52 pm »
I have no issue with a debate but it needs to be on Scientific merits and a whole lot less of the  :bullshit:
Most things that are broadly accepted reality now were once considered BS. How do you move the real from BS to any higher level of "merit" if you suppress things that don't have that merit today? BS is something we should live with, and filter at a personal level, not a societal level.
 
The following users thanked this post: RAPo

Online vad

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 518
  • Country: us
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #310 on: August 12, 2023, 12:38:28 pm »
But there is no debate, as stated by Dr. Judith Curry. Only research confirming climate concerns is rewarded; journals decline to publish articles that do not align with certain political viewpoints, and scientists are hesitant to voice their opinions due to potential career repercussions.
 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo, Karel, RAPo

Online vad

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 518
  • Country: us
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #311 on: August 12, 2023, 01:16:10 pm »
Alright, let's assume the new "climate change" religion is correct: humanity is on a path towards hell (literally - take a look at Venus). The Greens are our saviors, and people must abstain from certain activities, like stop burning fossil fuels, to be saved.

The top four CO2 emitters globally are China, the US, India, and Russia. The US is moving in a positive direction; for instance, soon, gas stoves won't be available, so wood-burning stoves might see a resurgence, particularly among lower-income individuals. After all, firewood is a renewable resource.

However, the biggest concern isn't just CO2 emissions from developed world. The real issue is the elephant in the room: China. China's CO2 emissions exceed the combined emissions of the US, EU, and Japan. Additionally, there's India and Russia to consider.

Here is the question: how can our "climate change" preachers persuade Russia, India, and China to halt their harmful actions? Going to war is not a viable option I guess. I'm genuinely curious.
 

Offline Bicurico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1816
  • Country: pt
    • VMA's Satellite Blog
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #312 on: August 12, 2023, 01:56:46 pm »
The main reason China is on the top in CO2 emissions is because they produce most products we consume.

If western countries would have kept their factories locally, then western countries would have much higher CO2 emissions and China, in consequence, would have less.

I already said it in the beginning of this thread:

1) The main "environmental problem" is due to human over population. We need to go back to being 2.000.000.000 people on earth, instead of striving to reach 10.000.000.000, soon.
2) The "clima change" is harmfull to us humans and our living standard. We might die out, but the planet will continue to exist and life on earth will continue. Remember what happend to the dinosaurs: a global clima change, caused by a meteorite, whiped out a whole species. So what? They were replaced by a new species.
3) In order to restrain human caused pollution, one has to accept that there is a price. Take for instance an MRI machine in a hospital. This machine relies on technology and components, manufactured all over the globe. It requires all sorts of elements, manufacturing processes, etc. If we want to eliminate pollution, then we need to eliminate global transportation (ships are enormous pollutors), we need to elimitae the extraction of elements like rare earth metals, gases, etc. We need to eliminate most of our industry. Also, we would need to increase the life expectancy of our products: no new mobile phone every two years - it needs to last 20 years! The same with the TV or the car. But doing so would mean that all these products need to be much more expensive, because they would be less production and demand.

Let's face it: nothing will change, we will at some point in time reach a new global war or pendemic, which will drastically reduce human kind. From there on, a new cycle will start.

All the rest is just made up taxes to get more money for questionable things.
 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo, .RC., RAPo

Offline AndyBeez

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 858
  • Country: nu
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #313 on: August 12, 2023, 02:36:04 pm »
The main reason China is on the top in CO2 emissions is because they produce most products we consume.

If western countries would have kept their factories locally, then western countries would have much higher CO2 emissions and China, in consequence, would have less.
Dumping CO2 still makes for cheaper electricity than net zero nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geo' and hydro' ever will.

One question guys: Why are we still having this conversation decades after the drive towards green energy began? Climate hysteria aside, the west was greening energy production long before globalisation. Yet we still have managed to increase our dependency on fossil fuels? Even my cleaner and greener UK has licensed new oil, gas and coal exploration and exploitation licenses under the fake pretence of energy security. Politicians might act as if they listen to the science, but really they just act on who has the most money to pull their strings. So it is no irony that the next COP climate junket this November will be hosted against the oil tycoon's skyline of Dubai. Which is why this quote kind of makes sense when considering the billions of dollars of snake oil that the climate industry rubs on itself every year. "Finding a solution to climate change is not the problem. The problem is if we find a solution to climate change." The inconvienient climate truth is your children will still be having this conversation in decades to come.
 
The following users thanked this post: .RC.

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7198
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #314 on: August 12, 2023, 02:39:45 pm »
Quote from: Wiktionary
skepticism (countable and uncountable, plural skepticisms) (American spelling)
  • The practice or philosophy of being a skeptic.
  • A studied attitude of questioning and doubt
  • The doctrine that absolute knowledge is not possible
  • A methodology that starts from a neutral standpoint and aims to acquire certainty through scientific or logical observation.
  • Doubt or disbelief of religious doctrines
Points 2., 3., and 4. also apply directly to all scientific methods.

A trustworthy scientist knows that they have to work based on the best current understanding –– best meaning the one that has withstood tests and comparisons to real-world measurements the most –– and that it is not necessarily correct.  They believe in some things, but they also recognize that that belief itself is just a human tool, something to make it easier for them to handle the fact that they know nothing for sure.

Indeed, one fun to work with faction of trustworthy scientists can be classified as diligent optimistic skeptics, who don't mind generalising and approximating things when there is real world utility in that.

Climate science is a bitch.

Researchers do not even agree to the underlying data sets.  Any measurement over a hundred years old is subject to "adjustment", often meaning the known measurements are replaced by running some model in reverse, so that it reproduces some initial (latest) best guesses what the measurements would have been if they were done "properly"; then the actual measurements are replaced with the simulated values.  Some measurements are ignored completely, because the researchers "do not believe in them", often because they can't get their models to reproduce such measurements at all.

Very few researchers understand the limitations of their models and simulations.  Many are near-chaotic, such that small changes produce only small changes in short simulations, but above a certain limit, changes produce completely unpredictable results.  That limit decreases the longer the simulation is.

Nobody agrees to the combined effects of insolation (solar output), composition of upper atmosphere (H2O and CO2 being the largest absorbers of sunlight spectrum, but stuff like ash – acting as kernels for water droplets – changing the picture completely), cloud reflection at lower atmosphere (aeroplane contrails and even large cargo ship exhaust) combined with seasonal winds, and so on.  You cannot even do serious research on that, because whatever your findings are, those believing otherwise will attack you with likely very deep pockets behind them (because all sides of the climate discussion are backed by deep pockets: many political, some industrial).

None of it is reliable.  All stages have pokeable holes in them.  Any claim –– and I do mean any, from purely anthropogenic causation to fully anthropogenic causation, and all variants in between and outside –– can be shown to have a significant basis on arbitrarily selected data (choose the data to get the results you want) or poorly understood models and their initial parameters.  Even meta-studies (looking at findings of existing studies) suffer from this.

Plus, historically, whenever the majority of scientists have agreed on something –– achieving the consensus some seem to be so desperate for –– they have turned out to be wrong within the next hundred years or so.

Basically, it is one of the fields of "science" we have managed to turn to utter shit, by messing and meddling with the data, its collection and collation, and now by using models we do not really know the limitations and faults of.  I don't care what side of the findings –– ostensible results –– you take/accept/believe, it is going to be wrong anyway.  You cannot find the best-fitting model when there is so much political, social, and financial power involved in the result.

:palm:
« Last Edit: August 12, 2023, 02:51:59 pm by Nominal Animal »
 
The following users thanked this post: terminus

Offline RAPo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 858
  • Country: nl
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #315 on: August 12, 2023, 02:44:41 pm »
    ...

    basically, it is one of the fields of "science" we have managed to turn to utter shit, by messing and meddling with the data, its collection and collation, and now by using models we do not really know the limitations and faults of.  I don't care what side of the findings –– ostensible results –– you take/accept/believe, it is going to be wrong anyway.  You cannot find the best-fitting model when there is so much political, social, and financial power involved in the result.

    :palm:[/list]
    And that's why we better call it climate beliefs. Everyone is entitled to her/his own beliefs, but comparing it to science (like the beta, philosophy and alpha sciences) is comparing apples and oranges
    « Last Edit: August 12, 2023, 03:03:03 pm by RAPo »
     

    Offline Nominal Animal

    • Super Contributor
    • ***
    • Posts: 7198
    • Country: fi
      • My home page and email address
    Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
    « Reply #316 on: August 12, 2023, 03:00:30 pm »
    It's also not the only field to be utterly fucked.  Human nutrition is another: sugars, fats, salts, artificial sweeteners, highly-refined ingredients like hydrogenated fats and modified starches...  it is pretty certain (from observing the results) that the most accurate models will be very, very different than what we believe about this now; and similarly, any nutritional recommendations not stemming from social, financial, political, and industry interests, and centered on individual health and well-being, would be utterly different to what we currently have.  (But it is near impossible to scientifically discover what that would be, because the entire field is so full of shit and no truly reliable data is available.)
     
    The following users thanked this post: SiliconWizard, terminus

    Offline snarkysparkyTopic starter

    • Frequent Contributor
    • **
    • Posts: 419
    • Country: us
    Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
    « Reply #317 on: August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pm »
    What fascinates me is that otherwise intelligent people will take on ideas based on faulty logic when it comes to global warming.

    They seem to have some very serious vested interest in it being false.  I agree it sure would be nice if we didn't have anything to worry about but it isn't the case.

    So are these illogical conclusions based on sheer unconscious fear or on a semi conscious understanding of the financial ramifications to their own livelihood.
    Or could it be based in religious mindset.  If you believe in a grand protector who won't let us harm ourselves then the whole issue seems irrelevant to them. But to admit religious motivation in an opinion is to draw fire for lack of reason.

    The logical fallacies

    Believing that others who are skeptical and voice doubt are in some way proof that doubt is valid.  There is nothing in untrained opinions that add anything to the discussion about the validity of the science.


    Fallacy of composition.   Some isolated piece of data proves CO2 warming incorrect.   We had a cold winter in Georgia for example.

    And my personal favorite.   "Climate is always changing".   I just have no idea what relevance this kind of statement brings.  Don't even know how that helps the cause of a denier.

    "We can't stop it anyhow"   Absolutely true given human nature.  But I refuse to be such a coward as to hide the fact that we are shi**ing up our own house toward it's eventual destruction.

    "BB other countries won't lower emission so why should we"   Well if the most prosperous country in the world will not go first in reducing emissions  then how can we expect poorer countries to self regulate. 

    "We can't deny developing countries the right to industrialize".   And we should not.  They can use fossil fuel to better their standard of living without jumping into wasteful entertainment consumption.

    Eh there are more but that probably enough
     
    The following users thanked this post: tom66, cbutlera

    Offline RAPo

    • Frequent Contributor
    • **
    • Posts: 858
    • Country: nl
    Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
    « Reply #318 on: August 12, 2023, 05:38:28 pm »
    Believing that others who are skeptical and voice doubt are in some way proof that doubt is valid.  There is nothing in untrained opinions that add anything to the discussion about the validity of the science.

    that is not a fallacy, mutatis mutandis it is also true for the climate believers: " we are with many so we must be right"

    Fallacy of composition.   Some isolated piece of data proves CO2 warming incorrect.   We had a cold winter in Georgia for example.
    In this isolated form yes, but the statement of climate believers: " today is the hottest month on record so the earth is warming up" is of the same order.

    And my personal favorite.   "Climate is always changing".   I just have no idea what relevance this kind of statement brings.  Don't even know how that helps the cause of a denier.
    Well, the climate is always changing so the statement from climate believers is a tautology. A tautology is no reason for being just.

    "We can't stop it anyhow"   Absolutely true given human nature.  But I refuse to be such a coward as to hide the fact that we are shi**ing up our own house toward it's eventual destruction.
    If it is true why spend this enormous amount of money and do we need the fear-mongering?
    It is for instance pride to say the climate measures taken in the Netherlands are working to lower the global temperature by 0.0037C, not science.

    "BB other countries won't lower emission so why should we"   Well if the most prosperous country in the world will not go first in reducing emissions then how can we expect poorer countries to self regulate. 

    Maybe does the term economy ring a bell?
    One day after the above Dutch-mentioned measure was made public, China opened another coal mine. Guess what: no extra measures were taken by the government so the statement is nullified

    "We can't deny developing countries the right to industrialize".   And we should not.  They can use fossil fuel to better their standard of living without jumping into wasteful entertainment consumption.

    An from Peterson shows that this is a questionable statement.

    Well, couldn't the rich countries finance some extra nuclear plants and give the developing country the needed energy for free? It would imho be a better way to spend the climate billions.
    Is the real question not "how do we de-industralize/de consume/ cut down the rich countries?
    « Last Edit: August 12, 2023, 05:47:21 pm by RAPo »
     
    The following users thanked this post: terminus

    Offline snarkysparkyTopic starter

    • Frequent Contributor
    • **
    • Posts: 419
    • Country: us
    Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
    « Reply #319 on: August 12, 2023, 06:55:33 pm »
    RAPo

    The only arguments I am making is for accepting the truth.  Not stretching to the end of the Earth for weak arguments to deny what is accepted science.

    Yes the economics of it are a mess.   We will never undertake the pain to limit emissions.   Lets just accept that we have set our house on fire and are unwilling to put it out. 
     

    Offline Bud

    • Super Contributor
    • ***
    • Posts: 7276
    • Country: ca
    Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
    « Reply #320 on: August 12, 2023, 07:02:17 pm »
    Amen bro, you've got what you wanted when starting this clickbait thread, rag chewing has been going for 13 pages.
    Facebook-free life and Rigol-free shack.
     

    Offline PlainName

    • Super Contributor
    • ***
    • Posts: 7509
    • Country: va
    Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
    « Reply #321 on: August 12, 2023, 07:18:33 pm »
    Name another complex scientific field like this where practically 100% agree, it never happens.

    Cosmology? Perpetual motion/free energy?

    You might say that there isn't 100% agreement with the free energy thing and point to Youtube as evidence, but the thing you quoted says "Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists" and I think we can agree that the Youtube freetards are not scientists. They're also not published (AFAIK Youtube is not 'publishing' in the science sense).
     

    Offline Nominal Animal

    • Super Contributor
    • ***
    • Posts: 7198
    • Country: fi
      • My home page and email address
    Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
    « Reply #322 on: August 12, 2023, 07:37:05 pm »
    China already out-pollutes Finland per capita.  Even if all Finns were to commit suicide to try and save the rest of the world (which seems to be the political plan here), all that would change is the Chinese Communist Party would just up their estimate of the point where anthropogenic changes' costs outweigh the benefits of not curbing pollution, by 0.3%.

    You won't be able to convince the CCP otherwise; their track record is clear.  They also have the firepower to protect themselves against attempts at forcible change-of-mind.  And USA is no better than that, at all; just more willing to use their war machine to try and force others to bend to their will.
    The superrrich already have their exit plans ready, having obtained large plots of land they intend to keep anyone else off of.

    Thus, either we're royally fucked, or we invent some technology that makes it worthwhile for the polluters to reduce their emissions, and some technology to compensate for the effects of whatever large-scale changes in the climate we end up with.  And just deal with the increasingly large flows of people from developing countries to Western countries.

    All this "you individual humans need to stop eating meat and using electricity so that we can save the planet" talk is bullshit, as it will not solve anything.
     
    The following users thanked this post: EEVblog, Howardlong, SiliconWizard

    Online tautech

    • Super Contributor
    • ***
    • Posts: 29812
    • Country: nz
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. Siglent Distributor NZ.
      • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
    Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
    « Reply #323 on: August 12, 2023, 08:36:05 pm »
    China already out-pollutes Finland per capita.  Even if all Finns were to commit suicide to try and save the rest of the world (which seems to be the political plan here), all that would change is the Chinese Communist Party would just up their estimate of the point where anthropogenic changes' costs outweigh the benefits of not curbing pollution, by 0.3%.

    You won't be able to convince the CCP otherwise; their track record is clear.  They also have the firepower to protect themselves against attempts at forcible change-of-mind.  And USA is no better than that, at all; just more willing to use their war machine to try and force others to bend to their will.
    The superrrich already have their exit plans ready, having obtained large plots of land they intend to keep anyone else off of.

    Thus, either we're royally fucked, or we invent some technology that makes it worthwhile for the polluters to reduce their emissions, and some technology to compensate for the effects of whatever large-scale changes in the climate we end up with.  And just deal with the increasingly large flows of people from developing countries to Western countries.

    All this "you individual humans need to stop eating meat and using electricity so that we can save the planet" talk is bullshit, as it will not solve anything.
    And who exactly put China in that position ?
    Western multinational greed without a care in the world for their local employees shifted lots of production there for just one reason, the $ $ $
    Avid Rabid Hobbyist.
    Some stuff seen @ Siglent HQ cannot be shared.
     

    Offline snarkysparkyTopic starter

    • Frequent Contributor
    • **
    • Posts: 419
    • Country: us
    Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
    « Reply #324 on: August 12, 2023, 10:41:35 pm »
    Amen bro, you've got what you wanted when starting this clickbait thread, rag chewing has been going for 13 pages.

    you have posted 7 times in this thread.   Why don't you protest by ignoring it.
     


    Share me

    Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
    Smf