PebHmong Discussion Forum

General Category => Debate Central => Topic started by: w1s3m0n on June 07, 2017, 05:06:32 PM

Title: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on June 07, 2017, 05:06:32 PM
Transcript from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8)


https://www.corbettreport.com/climatologist-breaks-the-silence-on-global-warming-groupthink/ (https://www.corbettreport.com/climatologist-breaks-the-silence-on-global-warming-groupthink/)

Expert on Climate Change questions the impact of climate change.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on June 07, 2017, 05:32:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM)
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: hmgROCK on June 09, 2017, 09:44:17 AM
what's wrong with clean water and air?
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on June 09, 2017, 01:26:56 PM
The premise on climate change is that it is based upon scientific models and a lot of literature have been published.  I once had a discussion with a PhD, a few of them on different occasions and I said I don't believe in global warming and the predicted impact.  I said I believe climates do change as we've seen in history, ice age etc...  I said humans do impact the climate.  What I am holding judgement on is what is the impact given we know so little about the Earth's atmospheres.  What I mean by that is someone can describe a car and it parts and know the fuel is going to end but the said mechanic is not the engineers who designed and built the car.  The engineers understand the trade-offs in the design and the engineers designed with a purpose.  The mechanic doesn't know these things because the mechanic simply lacks the intimate knowledge.  Modern science today in my opinion is at the mechanic level.  If it was higher at the engineer level, man would be terra forming Mars and engineering the atmosphere of Mars to be livable.  A lot of people disagree with what I say because it's not science they are talking about, it's dogmatic institution.  This type of critical thinking or group think reminds me of the persecution of Galileo.  As you see in these videos, most of the naysayers are retired scientists whom in their final years are expressing their true belief because the neoliberals are fascist.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on June 09, 2017, 01:31:01 PM
what's wrong with clean water and air?

Nothing.  Climate change and clean air and water are not the same.  People conflate the issue then confound the result.  Ta no wonder this is not science but a religion.  Al Gore isn't a scientist.  He's a politician.  His goal is to influence Washington DC for certain groups who want new energy so they can enrich their pockets.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: lexicon on June 09, 2017, 02:17:44 PM
Labels and name calling aside, I can agree the data is sparse and incomplete still.

Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: hmgROCK on June 09, 2017, 02:40:38 PM
The premise on climate change is that it is based upon scientific models and a lot of literature have been published.  I once had a discussion with a PhD, a few of them on different occasions and I said I don't believe in global warming and the predicted impact.  I said I believe climates do change as we've seen in history, ice age etc... I said humans do impact the climate. What I am holding judgement on is what is the impact given we know so little about the Earth's atmospheres.  What I mean by that is someone can describe a car and it parts and know the fuel is going to end but the said mechanic is not the engineers who designed and built the car.  The engineers understand the trade-offs in the design and the engineers designed with a purpose.  The mechanic doesn't know these things because the mechanic simply lacks the intimate knowledge.  Modern science today in my opinion is at the mechanic level.  If it was higher at the engineer level, man would be terra forming Mars and engineering the atmosphere of Mars to be livable.  A lot of people disagree with what I say because it's not science they are talking about, it's dogmatic institution.  This type of critical thinking or group think reminds me of the persecution of Galileo.  As you see in these videos, most of the naysayers are retired scientists whom in their final years are expressing their true belief because the neoliberals are fascist.

you say it yourself
not me

"humans do impact the climate"

driving cars, burning coal, etc... impact the climate.
you say it false because of data, and you say you human impact the climate

lol too funny
make up your mind
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: hmgROCK on June 09, 2017, 02:42:58 PM
Nothing.  Climate change and clean air and water are not the same.  People conflate the issue then confound the result.  Ta no wonder this is not science but a religion.  Al Gore isn't a scientist.  He's a politician.  His goal is to influence Washington DC for certain groups who want new energy so they can enrich their pockets.

of course they all link together
I ask you again

what's is wrong with clean water and air?


FYI, that ain't your morning fog
(http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/china-bad-pollution-climate-change-7__880.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on June 09, 2017, 09:59:06 PM
clean air and clean water is not climate change.  They are categorically three topics.  Also, humans impact climate.  That's natural.  Just like trees impact climate and mountains impact climate.  Why?  We are part of the ecosystem on earth, and to be part of the ecosystem is to have an impact on the said ecosystem.  Nobody can argue with that when the proposition is a tautology.  This is how people create red herring by starting a topic with a tautology and then leading to conclusion unrelated to the tautology.

I know China.  I spent a couple months living there.  I can assure you the smog is bad, and we don't know if the smog will cause the ice caps to melt.  That's what I mean about tautology leading to red herring.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on June 09, 2017, 10:05:10 PM
Labels and name calling aside, I can agree the data is sparse and incomplete still.

Fascism is not name calling.  Don't you think he neoliberals have been very militant in their suppression of other views?  Btw, I have the utmost respect for classical liberals and conservatives.  I also have a disdain for neoconservativ es too because they are straight up prejudice and borderline racist.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: hmgROCK on June 12, 2017, 07:03:11 AM
clean air and clean water is not climate change.  They are categorically three topics.  Also, humans impact climate.  That's natural.  Just like trees impact climate and mountains impact climate.  Why?  We are part of the ecosystem on earth, and to be part of the ecosystem is to have an impact on the said ecosystem.  Nobody can argue with that when the proposition is a tautology.  This is how people create red herring by starting a topic with a tautology and then leading to conclusion unrelated to the tautology.

I know China.  I spent a couple months living there.  I can assure you the smog is bad, and we don't know if the smog will cause the ice caps to melt.  That's what I mean about tautology leading to red herring.

lol i don't understand your point

you say it yourself, human impact the earth and climate
trust me bro
they ain't nothing nature about 1,000 coal plant burning nonstop
there plenty of documentary out there about ice cap melting
i live in wisconsin
it is really dry these pass few winter, there were times where there were no snow

again
what is wrong with clean water and air?
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/3256/production/_87368821_030684848-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: duckwingduck on June 12, 2017, 01:26:12 PM
In my programming class in high school, my teacher said, "little knowledge is a dangerous thing."  Some of us know a few terminologies and are already to make conclusions that the experts are wrong.  That was what my teacher meant.

In fact, the tobacco industry, the sugar and the supplement industries relies on creating small enough doubt to prevent a conclusion such as smoking causes cancer being made.  How did they do it?  They hire people ("expert") to come up with result that would contradict the main stream science.  Same thing is happening with global warming.  Certain people are attract to conspiracy theories.  Those people too find themselves attracted to these kind of claims by a few so called experts.

I would rather trust 99 climate scientists than 1 climate scientists.  Same with 99 doctors diagnose vs 1 doctor's diagnose.   
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: lexicon on June 12, 2017, 01:35:51 PM
 :D

It's not PH if we don't have a contrarian.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: hmgROCK on June 12, 2017, 01:50:26 PM
In my programming class in high school, my teacher said, "little knowledge is a dangerous thing."  Some of us know a few terminologies and are already to make conclusions that the experts are wrong.  That was what my teacher meant.

In fact, the tobacco industry, the sugar and the supplement industries relies on creating small enough doubt to prevent a conclusion such as smoking causes cancer being made.  How did they do it?  They hire people ("expert") to come up with result that would contradict the main stream science.  Same thing is happening with global warming.  Certain people are attract to conspiracy theories.  Those people too find themselves attracted to these kind of claims by a few so called experts.

I would rather trust 99 climate scientists than 1 climate scientists.  Same with 99 doctors diagnose vs 1 doctor's diagnose.   

yup excalty

even if you don't believe in climate change
at least believe in clean water and air
nothing wrong having clean water and air

can't have any of those
if you always polluting

 O0
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: Believe_N_Me on June 17, 2017, 01:04:41 AM
C'mon. If Leonard DiCaprio, Katy Perry, and Lady Gaga says that we need to invest all our money into this climate change agreement then by golly their word is gold.  O0

Most climate change supporters only read bumper stickers and tweets. They don't care to read the details of the agreement and its impact on US residents.

I also find it funny that the same people who don't believe ISIS is a terrorist group and thus can't be stopped, think they can actually control not only the weather but earth's actual climate.

If these same people wielded such godly powers then why didn't they make it rain when they were experiencing a drought?

 :idiot2: :idiot2: :idiot2:
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on June 17, 2017, 08:38:29 AM
Let me illustrate some points.

Proposition 1: man causes pollution (true statement)
Proposition 2: pollution is unhealthy to human (true statement)
Proposition 3: pollution is unhealthy to the environment (true statement)

Conclusion of 1, 2, and 3:  Pollution will cause planetary destruction to the earth of unimaginable proportion (leap of faith)).

When you take 3 truth statements and make a conclusion, the said conclusion is not nnecessary true.  In fact, the conclusion is exceptionally hard to prove.  If the conclusion is to be said to be true, we need significantly more objective data such that if we have the data it's probably too late.  That there is the conundrum.  This is why climate supporters are making a leap of faith.  Science doesn't take sides.  Science is self evident by the objective data such that nobody can deny it.  Science isn't popularity because science progresses forward through perturbation (aka noise  aka outliers aka innovation).  When science is entangled in politics like it is in climate science, it is not objective and becomes more about the political institution than the scientific institution.  Climate science is a lackey to politics and we know politics doesn't in innovate science because politics often shut oppositions up.  Politics often delay innovation as the church and state did to Galellio.  My greatest concern and I choose to take climate change as the platform to argue from is the independence of science from corruption.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: hmgROCK on June 19, 2017, 08:01:24 AM
Let me illustrate some points.

Proposition 1: man causes pollution (true statement)
Proposition 2: pollution is unhealthy to human (true statement)
Proposition 3: pollution is unhealthy to the environment (true statement)

Conclusion of 1, 2, and 3:  Pollution will cause planetary destruction to the earth of unimaginable proportion (leap of faith)).

When you take 3 truth statements and make a conclusion, the said conclusion is not nnecessary true.  In fact, the conclusion is exceptionally hard to prove.  If the conclusion is to be said to be true, we need significantly more objective data such that if we have the data it's probably too late.  That there is the conundrum.  This is why climate supporters are making a leap of faith.  Science doesn't take sides.  Science is self evident by the objective data such that nobody can deny it.  Science isn't popularity because science progresses forward through perturbation (aka noise  aka outliers aka innovation).  When science is entangled in politics like it is in climate science, it is not objective and becomes more about the political institution than the scientific institution.  Climate science is a lackey to politics and we know politics doesn't in innovate science because politics often shut oppositions up.  Politics often delay innovation as the church and state did to Galellio.  My greatest concern and I choose to take climate change as the platform to argue from is the independence of science from corruption.

ok

let say that 99% of the science are wrong

my question to you is

what is wrong with having clean air and water?

i won't want to go around wearing a mask all day and drink lead water
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on June 20, 2017, 08:04:47 AM
In America we are so concern with the environment because almost all of our needs are fulfilled by our social fabric and harmony.  In third world country, their social fabric is torn and there is war and chaos, completely almost no harmony.  It is easy for us, the propspering people to criticize the leaders for are allowing pollution.  It is easy for these environmentali st to complain when what they should be doing is becoming a scientist or engineer if they cared so deeply about clean air and water.  Only scientist and engineers can design new paradigm shift in energy consumption to support the exponentially growing population.  No amount of conservation will solve the problem of over population.  I think I said this before, the problem isn't dirty energy like coal, the root cause that drives the need for dirty coal is population growth and demand in affordable energy.  A third world or becoming first world country will burn the cheapest fuel, and use their environment to satisfy the growing need of their population.  Those nation choose between food/shelter/safety over environment.  If the leader chooses environment people will riot.  even the staunched environmentali st who have gone off grid know their personal sacrifice will have zero effect because population growth will eradicate all their efforts.

Let me ask a question of you?  What do you choose?  Food/shelter/safety vs. clean environment.  I and many choose the prior out of necessity.  (See Maslow Hierarchy of Need to reference on necessity)
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on June 20, 2017, 08:13:56 AM
Last point on this.  There is only one real solution: build cleaner energy and facilities to manage and dispose human waste.  Total war sounds easy but it doesn't solve the growth problem.  1 child policy is coercion of such policy places the burden on poor people more than rich.  As we struggle with the environment it is a much more complex problem than wishing for clean air and water.  There are social issues that needs addressing as well.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: hmgROCK on June 20, 2017, 08:52:12 AM
you got to have a clean environment to have food/shelter/water/safety
right now, your food ain't being grow where you live
it being truck in

i live in upper wisconsin
there not alot of factory up here
we have some of the best fishing and hunting here

(http://i.imgur.com/HrqEgoB.jpg)

Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on June 21, 2017, 01:03:30 AM
Why you gotta lie about northern Wisconsin.  Everybody knows the wolf river is dirty dirty.  The DNR rates upper Wisconsin area around Fremont and down very bad.  The wood and paper industries near the borde of Wisconsin and Canada dumps tons of pollutant.  People like you don't seem to care because your need today far exceed your health tomorrow.  This point is what I've been trying to tell you.  You demonstrate my point well.

Nice looking white bass are the ones from North Dakota 15 years ago before the fracking.  Today they aren't as pretty.  Your white bass is dark.  It's been in dirty water.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: hmgROCK on June 21, 2017, 08:26:25 AM
Why you gotta lie about northern Wisconsin.  Everybody knows the wolf river is dirty dirty.  The DNR rates upper Wisconsin area around Fremont and down very bad.  The wood and paper industries near the borde of Wisconsin and Canada dumps tons of pollutant.  People like you don't seem to care because your need today far exceed your health tomorrow.  This point is what I've been trying to tell you.  You demonstrate my point well.

Nice looking white bass are the ones from North Dakota 15 years ago before the fracking.  Today they aren't as pretty.  Your white bass is dark.  It's been in dirty water.

that's what i am trying to say bro

WHAT IS WRONG WITH CLEAN WATER AND AIR?


the answer is:  NOTHING, we need more of those


trust me, at least there fish here
we got folks coming from illinois, iowa and even MN
cause their lake and river are soo pollute fish don't even live there no more

because there less pollution here
notice how i say less
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on June 21, 2017, 10:35:26 AM
Let me say first I mean no ill will about what it is I am going to say.  I'm going to use you to illustrate my point now that I know you live in fox valley and understand the fox valley issue.  20+ years ago when I started fishing in the fox valley area the white bass was cleaner and biggger.  They are called white bass for a reason.  Now they are dark, tinted and brown.  They are dirty now.  Wisconsin river has cleaner fish per DNR.  20+ years ago The Fox Valley area were:
1) less population
2) less pollution
3) more clean fish
4) more clean water and air
5) less opportunities
6) less companies by market size

Around 20- years ago Wisconsin made Fox Valley an area of targeted growth versus SE Wisconsin.  Why?  Affordable properties, less regulation, and etc... major companies started to spring up and grow rapidly making Fox Valley area a super desirable place to live affordably.  It is exactly the tensions I've been describing to you that you can say, I don't need a four year degree to live a good life and travel.  You see the industrial growth is why you can haha and complain about needing clean air and clean water, have a good paying job, live in an affordable area, and travel.  You take the pollution away by increasing regulation the companies goes away, you lose your job, you can't travel and now don't care about clean air and clean water because your gut nervous system (brain) is way smarter than your head brain.

Today the fox valley:
1) more companies by market size
2) more opportunities
3) more population
4) more pollution
5) less fish
6) less clean air and water

Notice the trade off!?!?!  If yuh don't then I don't know how to explain this.  LOL!!

Let me make my position clear.  I am for clean air and clean water when the technology can support it.  People needs supersedes nature.  Hopefully, you understand the topic a bit better now that I use your life as an example.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: Believe_N_Me on June 28, 2017, 11:19:42 PM
hmgRock doesn't understand:

- at what cost to what affect?

He doesn't understand that going bankrupt only to yield less than 1% improvement is a bad idea. More people will starve and die before we hit the 1%. But hey, at least hmgrock feels good about it, right?

hmrock comes from the school that thinks it is worth spending billions of dollars on a failing school as long as ONE student graduates. One student graduating is convincing enough to keep spending billions on this same school year after year.

Yeah, let's not give it to the school with a high rate of graduating students.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: hmgROCK on July 21, 2017, 12:25:00 PM
hmgRock doesn't understand:

- at what cost to what affect?

He doesn't understand that going bankrupt only to yield less than 1% improvement is a bad idea. More people will starve and die before we hit the 1%. But hey, at least hmgrock feels good about it, right?

hmrock comes from the school that thinks it is worth spending billions of dollars on a failing school as long as ONE student graduates. One student graduating is convincing enough to keep spending billions on this same school year after year.

Yeah, let's not give it to the school with a high rate of graduating students.

Only one person need clean air and water?

Lol

What's wrong with clean water and air???
Shoot even if you don't believe in climate change
What is wrong with clean water and air

I just don't understand

We got all these technology to do this
Get away from coal
So people stop getting asthma
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: Blongforever on July 25, 2017, 09:41:14 AM
Highlights of my elementary understanding of the issues of climate change.

*Climate change has been there even before the "Big Bang theory". 

*Human is the worse creature ever existed in earth as far as impacting or exacerbating climate problems.

*environmentalists believe we can slow down the worsening of climate change by taking responsibility on our own action.

*Righwinger/tea baggers believe we have little impact in climate change so wtf are we even focus on such insignificant issue?  Instead, focus on our pockets.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: can on July 27, 2017, 01:08:57 PM
Let me illustrate some points.

Proposition 1: man causes pollution (true statement)
Proposition 2: pollution is unhealthy to human (true statement)
Proposition 3: pollution is unhealthy to the environment (true statement)

Conclusion of 1, 2, and 3:  Pollution will cause planetary destruction to the earth of unimaginable proportion (leap of faith)).

When you take 3 truth statements and make a conclusion, the said conclusion is not nnecessary true.  In fact, the conclusion is exceptionally hard to prove.  If the conclusion is to be said to be true, we need significantly more objective data such that if we have the data it's probably too late.  That there is the conundrum.  This is why climate supporters are making a leap of faith.  Science doesn't take sides.  Science is self evident by the objective data such that nobody can deny it.  Science isn't popularity because science progresses forward through perturbation (aka noise  aka outliers aka innovation).  When science is entangled in politics like it is in climate science, it is not objective and becomes more about the political institution than the scientific institution.  Climate science is a lackey to politics and we know politics doesn't in innovate science because politics often shut oppositions up.  Politics often delay innovation as the church and state did to Galellio.  My greatest concern and I choose to take climate change as the platform to argue from is the independence of science from corruption.

you don't understand climate change. it's not for preserving the world for the sake of the world. it's for human survival. duh.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: hmgROCK on July 27, 2017, 01:19:32 PM
lol

all these joker

what is wrong with clean water and air?

don't you know flint, michigan been going through a water crisis for a couple of years now

(http://www.okwassup.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Flint-water-examples.jpg)

even obama won't drink it
he just lick his lips

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhbNlvjClOU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhbNlvjClOU)

Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on January 14, 2018, 07:25:47 PM
you don't understand climate change. it's not for preserving the world for the sake of the world. it's for human survival. duh.

Classic fear monger.  Climate change advocate always use the end of the world like religious leader to control the mass.  Like religious leader they are fear mongering the ignorant into following order.  Anybody who knows anything about growth and decay model or sterilization knows that highly resilient organisms like humans don't die even with 99% decimation.  Your kill rate has to be higher like 99.99999% to be consider sterile.  So unless a model can show sterility of the world caused by climate change, there's nothing to worry.  Obviously a lot of devastation and suffering but the race will continue.  Suppose a 99% decimation of the human population, with a 50% generational growth, it only take a few hundred years to overpopulate at 7B again if we have the current modern science.  So I don't see how fear monger actually helps here.  If we really care about clean air and water, we have to build the technology.  Why aren't the advocates going to engineering/science school to do this?  We can complain about this for another thousand year and no solution will come if someone doesn't put the problem to pen and paper and draft up the scientific solution.  The scientific solution will not be Americans will pay 10x while India/China prosper using the energy advantage.  With a 10x energy advantage, China/India within 1-2 generation can outmaneuver American economically.  How will our grand kids like being third place because some idealistic baloney crap caused us to falter from a dominant position.  All I'm saying is be pragmatic and results should be in comparison to China/India.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on January 14, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
We don't want dirty water and air.  We got great water quality and air in most area of America.  It's better than China and India by multiple factors.

lol

all these joker

what is wrong with clean water and air?

don't you know flint, michigan been going through a water crisis for a couple of years now

(http://www.okwassup.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Flint-water-examples.jpg)

even obama won't drink it
he just lick his lips

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhbNlvjClOU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhbNlvjClOU)
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: Believe_N_Me on January 28, 2018, 02:31:48 AM
I can guarantee you that right now all these climate change believers are doing nada to better the environment. They're still eating meat that they didn't raise and slaughter themselves. They're still living on grid. They're still getting around in motorized vehicles. They're still powering their homes with fossil fuels, etc.

Did you know that we would do much more damage to the environment if we were all to go vegan? Imagine all the land that must be farmed to feed the mass. Especially if we were going organic, it takes a lot longer for veggies to grow. People would have already starved by then.

Libtards believe in theories (a lot of them unproven). They don't believe in FACTS or experience.

Climate change is a religion for the privileged. Poor people don't give a shit about your electric cars. They're lucky if they even have a moped or a heater in their home.
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: w1s3m0n on February 07, 2018, 09:34:46 PM
OKAY!  Funny post but true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnitLNObR7c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnitLNObR7c)


NOTICE THE DECLINE IN POLLUTION.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ-6n28VoAA8GG2.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
Post by: Believe_N_Me on February 16, 2018, 10:13:46 PM
America has been moving in the right direction in regards to cleaner air and water. If Democrat-run cities like Flint continue to be a s.hithole then they should blame their elected leaders and officials.