2 ms·

> Wikipedia is not science. That Wikipedia article has 158 sources cited. You? Zero. > Repeating it won't make it so. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acor

by titzer 7y ago

> Wikipedia is not science. That Wikipedia article has 158 sources cited. You? Zero. > Repeating it won't make it so. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/#tabs=ACORN%E2%80%90SAT http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/#tabs=ACORN%E2%... I mean, you can go trawl through the data yourself. The graph is in the last expandable fold. The page describes the data collection practices, peer review, the entire god damn thing right there. But you know what? You don't care. Because it's gonna be another bullshit thing, one after another---oh that's not real data. That's not science. That's fake news, lalalala, you don't wanna hear it, and on and on and on. > Why? What possible benefit would that have Well TBH trolls like you have a net negative effect on the entire discourse and the culture here. I generally don't think it's good for the culture for people to engage trolls, but egad, I stepped on a landmine and here we are. It's not good when the community has to spell it out in black and white, but what I am basically saying is, stop embarrassing yourself and don't bother commenting if you can't offer anything positive. You haven't offered one goddamn source or citation, just your feelings. Please spare us!

briantakita 7y ago
Freeman Dyson did speak out against climate alarmism. He provides some insightful counterpoints to the prevailing APW narrative, particularly about taking models on faith & the provisional nature of science. Given he was directly involved with some of the initial climate models, it's an interesting take on how models of complex nonlinear systems often oversimplify reality with assumptions. It seems like good general wisdom re: models in any domain exhibiting similar complexity & nonlinearity. https://youtu.be/BiKfWdXXfIs https://youtu.be/BiKfWdXXfIs
- titzer 7y ago
  Thanks for the link. I watched a bit of that. Freeman Dyson's opinion is one of skepticism, not denial. Unfortunately I don't think he's deeped in the science or the messiness of climate modeling, so I think he's just not an expert here. Bright, even eminent scientists can be wrong, even in their areas of expertise. For example, Ernst Mach was famous for not believing atoms exist, even declaring it loudly after having heard a lecture by Boltzmann. Einstein firmly opposed the nondeterminism underlying quantum mechanics, refusing to believe that physics is not deterministic (this is the source of his famous "God does not play dice" quote.)
asdkjh345 7y ago
>That Wikipedia article has 158 sources cited. So? Every single wikipedia article on anything controversial is trash. Even things you don't realize are controversial, but a few random people have an emotional investment in. Wikipedia does not require valid citations, most citations on wikipedia don't support the claims made in the articles. >You? Zero. I am not writing an encyclopedia article. >I mean, you can go trawl through the data yourself I have, which is why I suggested that you try it. Do yourself a favor, watch this 13 minute video, then go look at the data he is referencing and see for yourself that he's correct. Climate hysteria is political, and supposedly trustworthy scientific organizations are engaged in deliberate deception to push lies. https://hooktube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU https://hooktube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU >Because it's gonna be another bullshit thing, one after another Like all the climate hysteria predictions made based on these infallible computer models, which have a 0% accuracy rate thus far. The warming has thus far has been insignificant. The effect has been beneficial. CO2 itself is highly beneficial. All claims of disaster are based entirely on speculation. Remember, many Pacific islands were predicted to be GONE by now. They are not. Several are larger. Forgive me if I base my actions on the actual data rather than predictions made by people who have a zero percent success rate. >Well TBH trolls like you have a net negative effect on the entire discourse and the culture here Dismissing things you don't want to know about as "trolling" has a net negative effect. If you care about discourse, stop trying to make currently popular fads into religious requirements for talking on a website. >stop embarrassing yourself and don't bother commenting How many more decades of failed predictions will it take before you feel embarrassed about your blind repetition of lies about data you never bothered to look at?

by titzer 7y ago

briantakita 7y ago

Freeman Dyson did speak out against climate alarmism. He provides some insightful counterpoints to the prevailing APW narrative, particularly about taking models on faith & the provisional nature of science. Given he was directly involved with some of the initial climate models, it's an interesting take on how models of complex nonlinear systems often oversimplify reality with assumptions. It seems like good general wisdom re: models in any domain exhibiting similar complexity & nonlinearity. https://youtu.be/BiKfWdXXfIs https://youtu.be/BiKfWdXXfIs

titzer 7y ago
Thanks for the link. I watched a bit of that. Freeman Dyson's opinion is one of skepticism, not denial. Unfortunately I don't think he's deeped in the science or the messiness of climate modeling, so I think he's just not an expert here. Bright, even eminent scientists can be wrong, even in their areas of expertise. For example, Ernst Mach was famous for not believing atoms exist, even declaring it loudly after having heard a lecture by Boltzmann. Einstein firmly opposed the nondeterminism underlying quantum mechanics, refusing to believe that physics is not deterministic (this is the source of his famous "God does not play dice" quote.)

asdkjh345 7y ago

>That Wikipedia article has 158 sources cited. So? Every single wikipedia article on anything controversial is trash. Even things you don't realize are controversial, but a few random people have an emotional investment in. Wikipedia does not require valid citations, most citations on wikipedia don't support the claims made in the articles. >You? Zero. I am not writing an encyclopedia article. >I mean, you can go trawl through the data yourself I have, which is why I suggested that you try it. Do yourself a favor, watch this 13 minute video, then go look at the data he is referencing and see for yourself that he's correct. Climate hysteria is political, and supposedly trustworthy scientific organizations are engaged in deliberate deception to push lies. https://hooktube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU https://hooktube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU >Because it's gonna be another bullshit thing, one after another Like all the climate hysteria predictions made based on these infallible computer models, which have a 0% accuracy rate thus far. The warming has thus far has been insignificant. The effect has been beneficial. CO2 itself is highly beneficial. All claims of disaster are based entirely on speculation. Remember, many Pacific islands were predicted to be GONE by now. They are not. Several are larger. Forgive me if I base my actions on the actual data rather than predictions made by people who have a zero percent success rate. >Well TBH trolls like you have a net negative effect on the entire discourse and the culture here Dismissing things you don't want to know about as "trolling" has a net negative effect. If you care about discourse, stop trying to make currently popular fads into religious requirements for talking on a website. >stop embarrassing yourself and don't bother commenting How many more decades of failed predictions will it take before you feel embarrassed about your blind repetition of lies about data you never bothered to look at?