This article made me think of our conversation. “On Wednesday, Dr. Grimalda said he was being fired from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank, after refusing to take transcontinental flights back from Papua New Guinea. “Many people asked me if I regret not catching a plane to go back,” Dr. Grimalda wrote by email. “And my answer is no.” “I have a moral commitment to this type of travel,” he later said in a phone interview from Papua New Guinea. “To be at peace within myself knowing that I have done the absolute right thing.” After Refusing to Fly, Climate Researcher Loses His Job
interesting, but it’s just a publicity stunt in my eyes, and will do absolutely nothing to make a dent in the unsubstantiated claims of global warming. But thanks for posting it, and hats off to him for at least trying. I find it interesting that this didn’t make the news in anyway, other than Twitter.
There's still time, brother! (250 million years) With the developments in the Middle East, we, as a species may not have more than a few years. Armageddon may be closing in fast.
But what about all the scientific proof that proves the planet is getting infinitely hotter? I can see if you don't think this massive heating earth event as being man-made, but how can you dismiss climate warming? To each his own, I guess.
Because there is no proof. Because there is no scientific consensus. Because the earth has been heating and cooling in cycles since the planet formed. Because the people who scream the loudest about it don’t change their own behavior. Because thousands of people are becoming Uber wealthy peddling the scam for profit. Because most people are stupid sheep.
Most people are stupid sheep. But there is a scientific consensus that shows global warming is real, according to the data. You are correct, the earth has been heating and cooling for billions of years. I think that most people, by this time, accept that global warming is real, with the big question now is is it caused by man. But, we all have a right to our own beliefs.
Proof is a challenging concept for science, so I would agree as written. I would add that the lack of proof doesn’t preclude the existence of evidence though. There is certainly evidence. Well our best studies of this question suggest that a large majority of climate scientists accept the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change This is true, according to climate scientists, but forest fires also occurred before arson existed. Some definitely fit this description, but not all. Indeed there is money to be made if we move to alternative energy. Though there is likely just as much money to made if we don’t. So I think this is a push. This is a value judgement, but if you think millions of people are stupid sheep, you face a tough problem: How can you know you are any different?
This is why the alarmist theory of dooms day global warming is a joke. Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute IMO it is the largest snake oil salesman scam in the history of mankind.
there is not consensus. If you even put 5 minutes into research you would know this. Nowadays it seems like every-time a paper is written espousing doomsday, shortly thereafter the underlying data is found to be fraudulent (or “miscalculated”) I accept Global warming, coupled with global cooling. I think of it as seasons over 100s of millions of years, just like the 4 seasons we have yearly. I have zero worries. I am much more concerned about pollution, especially in the oceans and waterways. I would like to see all the billions/trillions wasted on the snake oil climate change hoax redirected to actually doing something tangible and real. Clean our planet!
I agree with everything here, but the counter evidence outweighs the scintilla of evidence in this case.
Slow travel. Such a sacrifice. Instead of submitting himself to the subhuman experience of being herded like cattle that is modern air travel and having to go straight back to work, he parties on boats and trains for days. Or reads or sleeps or writes up his research without his wife and kids nagging and yelling at him. Or carries on an affair or does anything else he wants to. Does his fuel share on a flight do more damage than the boats and the trains? Or maybe his principles mean something and he swims and walks the entire way.
This seems like a shaky use of inductive reasoning to me. Because Paul Ehrlich was wrong about famine in the 60s, then the entire field of climatology must be wrong today. This certainly does not have to be so. It would be equivalently grounded to say because. Because Republicans of the 70s and 80s were wrong about many things, the Republican platform of today must also be wrong. Maybe, but to quote David Hume, who first noted the problem with induction, the consequence seems nowise necessary.
I gave you a link that makes a pretty earnest attempt at answering this question. Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change
I have to say, the Forbes article that you quoted, and the methodology that they used, is so friggin’ stupid. I realize the Arthur of the article backed off the 97% preposterous claim, but he ignored the stupidity of the data itself. That claim is based upon published papers. If you don’t believe in global warming, you can’t have your paper published. Nobody will publish it. Further, claiming there is a 80 or 90% contestants on global warming based upon the papers written ignore the fact that not every scientist publishes. If I am a physicist and have published six papers on black holes and such, you don’t get to take my lack of publication in the global warming hoax as some type of tacit approval. if you go to the Swamp on a Saturday pregame, and take a poll of people going to the game, you will find that nearly 100% of those polled love football. That does not mean that 100% of the population loves football. now I’ll turn the absurdity of that data collection and analysis on its face. There are approximately 9 million scientist in the world today. According to the information I could find, there was much less than 500 articles published last year and support of climate change. The number is actually closer to 200. Look for purposes of this flawed analysis, I will give you 500. Of those 9 million scientist, only 500 support the hoax of global warming. That is .005%. does that sound like a consensus to you? Now, don’t come back and tell me that my math is stupid, because I know it’s stupid. That’s the point. There’s no difference between the math analysis that I’m using, and the analysis that they are using who claim there’s 97% consensus. If they get to use stupid math to say, there’s 97%, I get to use the same inverse stupid math analysis to say there’s .005%.
