Longhornmaniac8

That is patently false. They're respected by people within skeptic circles, but people like Spencer, Christy, Soon, Nova, Lindzen, Michaels, et al. are rightfully shunned in academic circles. Their work is dubious at best and psuedoscientific hackery at worst.

It's also noteworthy that it's the same small subset of names that are continuing to cash in on non-scientists' inability to determine good science from bad science.

There are valid scientific inquiries in the climatology realm. Be very careful of how arguments are framed. Real science acknowledges what it doesn't know. Go read the Executive Summary of First Working Group of the Fifth Assessment Report. You won't see any hedging or acknowledgement of data gaps in the skeptic papers, even if they can find an outlet to get them peer-reviewed.

Occam's Razor. Is it more likely there is a vast conspiracy within scientific realms across multiple disciplines to shun the truth or is it more likely that the "few doctorate level Climatologists" are actually full of s#!t?

Blackhawk

But cardboard is biodegradable and breaks down into soil that can be used to grow trees that scrub CO2 and can be used to make cardboard and paper which is biodegradable and breaks down into soil...
Good thing we switched to plastic bags.

CBreezy

Standing ovation

Mesabah

There is a vast scam going on, you have to at least admit that, the proof is windmills are everywhere.

Longhornmaniac8

I don't follow.

Itsajob

I think that he’s commenting on the political correctness bias of what is considered accepted science. The bulk of the funding goes to studies attempting to find the desired outcome, while studies showing that the desired narrative may not be entirely correct are shot down as weak science. Less than 5% of our energy is produced from wind and solar. Both methods are too costly and inefficient to provide enough power to meet our massive energy needs. Electric cars are great, but the manufacturing and disposal of the batteries, and burning tons of coal to produce the vast majority of our electricity isn’t. The windmills sound like a good idea, but the amount of power that they produce over time compared to their cost make them inefficient as well. The huge carbon fiber blades are also time limited parts that are difficult to recycle or dispose of. The one truly green option, nuclear, is safe and the most efficient option given our current level of technology. The problem is that it isn’t politically correct. It has an extremely low carbon and environmental footprint, it is more efficient than coal, and unlike wind or solar, it can run 24/7 and provide plentiful power without depending on adequate wind or sunshine. France is almost completely nuclear and has an ample supply of clean energy. Germany is highly dependent on nuclear as well, but they have decided to move away due to political reasons and public perceptions lacking any hard evidence. We won’t even admit that it is an option, or that wind and solar energy can’t even come close to meeting our needs. Instead we put up a few wind and solar farms to feel good about ourselves and fire up that fossil fuel generator.

FLT000

Follow the money.
It is ALWAYS about the money.





and Control.

JayBee

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf...ACMAj397y0bMCE

Here is an actual published paper backing up what I said.



I'm not a denier, I'm vested in weather science since its my second job and all... I stick to facts.

Longhornmaniac8

Thanks for providing a perfect example of the point I made.

Real science doesn't have titles like "No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change." This looks and reads like a Watts Up With That blog post. Wouldn't surprise me if you got it from there, actually.

This is a terrific example of pseudoscience. And it has not been published, therefore it hasn't been peer-reviewed. It's going to get laughed away from any reputable journal.

It's also comical in its assumptions. CO2 climate forcing of 0.24C? Give me a break.

You may work in weather, but that doesn't qualify you to speak on climatology. And if you think this is what real science looks like, you should stick to your flying job.

It's also telling that the first thing you can find to post as "evidence" is pseudoscientific BS. If you want to have a scientific debate, I'm fine with that. But we should stick to actual science.

LoneStar32

Love this post right here. I’ve been saying for years that nuclear is the answer. There are some bad connotations associated with nuclear energy, some right fully deserved (like Futchuma). However technology of containing and disposing of nuclear waste has dramatically improved over the last couple decades (Futchuma was an old outdated plant that needed to be updated, current technologies would have prevented that disaster)

investing in Upgrading current nuclear facilities and building new ones is the key right now to reduce our carbon footprint. Maybe in another 100 years more clean energies will be more practical. But in the meantime if we are serious in reducing our carbon footprint, the only realistic answer is nuclear.