Big Coal Predicted Climate Change...In 1966

How much of this information did you read? I’m working my way through it and already discovered a fascinating tidbit. It seems back in 1801 it was noticed there was a strong relationship between wheat prices and solar activity. More solar activity, lower wheat prices.

Thanks for doing so much leg work.

 

That's right *pats you on the head* now go play.

 

Alarmists paid for by the government blame everything negative in the world on global warming. It’s breathtaking.

 

Guessing you were bluffing lol.

 

I read through at least the abstracts and discussions. Which reminds me of a point I was going to make. That point is that my going through all of that is at least verging on falling into the trap of trying to play scientist. There is only a very limited analysis that I can do on the science itself.

 

Did that seem scientific to you?

 

What do you claim are the top three destructive examples of global warming ???

 

Sounds like you work for Cook. He hired 12 people who knew little about science to do his data collection.

 

Same. I don't know what all the data means, so I just ignore it.

when I was a graduate student, I learned how this all works. There was a huge bouhaha over the Chomsky or Skinner theories. The difference being that Skinner wasn't providing a theory so much as it was a philosophical treatise on behavior. Chomsky attacked this by pointing to behavior. I could respect that. except he didn't know how to explain it, while Skinner did.

This resulted in the blank slate against Chomsky's theory of innate ability.

I looked at both sides, and realized that Skinner wasn't going for a scientific method, but rather a philosophical method. then looked at Chomsky and he was doing the same thing, but without admitting as much.

So I went with Skinner. At least he was being honest.

 

Thanks for the feedback. That’s pretty much what I’m doing unless something obviously interesting catches my eye or I see something hinky.


I wouldn’t call myself a polymath, but my interest in learning about everything I come into contact with definitely puts me on the spectrum. Maybe a wannabe polymath. You know my work exposes me to agricultural biological sciences constantly so I try and limit my informed opinions to those areas and the peripheries. What I’m saying is, I’m not going to critique oceanography. But when I see errors I know to be errors close to home, I’m going to have an opinion. I’m open to yours as well because I know you aren’t as unqualified to play scientist as you say. But I definitely see your point and agree to some extent on learning from experts. My skepticism comes from errors and propaganda I see in the areas I do understand. Nobody can convince me they only occur in this area (my wheelhouse).

 

And errors and misinformation are completely ignored. Well, actually nobody cares to question any of it at all. I can’t understand that way of thinking.

 

Scott Adams, the creator of the comic strip Dilbert, explains the phenomenon in his new book “Loserthink”. I posted text up thread.

 

Doom and gloom since 1922.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warm-welcome/

 

I see. So your analysis is political. I have long believed that to be the case. A tip. When you wanted to tax us more, that was a hell of a tip off.

 

Prior to being a pilot, I had studied physics, Chemistry and other sciences, such as biology, deep into Earth's history and until I studied weather, this business of Climate had plenty of mystery to it. Actually if one has not taken the course required by the FAA, they can easily make errors and come up with strange concepts, such as blame man for the climate of the entire planet yet not explain which men or how they manage climate for earth.
Then they admit to them it is politics. That puts them out of the discussion.

 

That has more science to it than the claim he has to avoid explaining the science himself.

 

Exactly. Anyone can compile a list of links. And most likely any adverse effects caused by global warming in those papers will be the result of computer modeling which is not data.

Scott Adams puts it well:

Adams, Scott. Loserthink (pp. 22-23). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

 

If you want to run naked and free, hug trees and live in a cave with a hairy woman named Moonbeam, go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Worship Gaia as hard as you want, just don't try to force us to do it too.

We like indoor plumbing and electricity. That's why we're working so hard to keep the lights on after the fossil fuel runs up. If it was up to deniers, the future of humanity would be the whole planet shivering in the dark for eternity.

 

"Not a true Scotsman" fallacy. Your lunatic claim is that only those who agree with your loopy reality-defying religion "understand climate'.

 

How can the poor afford electricity with out cheap fossil fuel and nukes?

 

Who's saying to remove all fossil fuel and nukes right this minute?

 

So now talking points have changed?

 

So your implied claim is that if "A' causes something, then it's "emotional" to say "B" also causes it, even if "B" _does_ cause it. How peculiar.

The article's premise was good. It's your logic that appears to be flawed and emotion-based.

Look like I just did so again.

Understood. There were no "glaring factual errors". You bluffed, I called, you folded.

 

I don't know. What have you changed your talking points to this time?

 

Says the guy who bases his every argument on his sacred list of links.

Hilarious.