Trump

[47MVEagle]

Might as well, seems me Brookie think alike on lots of things.

I'm still interested in HIS answer to my question though.

 

[Brookie1973]

On climate change being politicised
Agree with you that politicians should not politicise it. eg. why do I want to hear politician X's thoughts on it? It is unfair on climate researchers that the choice of politicians to politicise it may also lead to people discrediting their work (from what I see online).

I do think they have politicised it in the sense of 'vote for me, I care about it more'. Is that what you are thinking? If it is something else; then against who / for what?

My solution may differ from yours but I think it is the only way to keep politics out of it is to have the parties lean solely on the leading experts to advise them. Both parties then work out a compromise to ensure the climate response remains the same irrespective of who is in power (i.e. do so in private, prior to election cycles).

Particularly in the US (although also in AUS) it is too easy for politicians to make big decisions based on their own opinion and/or external motives that disrupts long-term planning and direction.

___________________
On model accuracy (additional note)
In my last post I included a pdf detailing the accuracy of the temp rise model used by the IPCC. In this one ill also include the sea level one. I think there are a lot of misleading ideas spread online about accuracy of models; people often acknowledge only worst case (upper bound) estimates and neglect effects such as sea-level rise being non-uniform (oceanographers better suited to explaining the many variables than I). Many low-lying nations have already been affected. mean global rise of 98.3mm since 1993 w/ accelerating rates. Many people don't realise more CO2 is being extracted and released than ever before in spite of the notion of climate initiatives being widespread and/or overblown.

___________________
On research funding
From what I hear, scientific research in general is poorly funded. From my initial search I looked at R&D budgets in Aus. For CCEEW (climate change, energy, the environment and water); they get $1.2 billion, ranked 4th (of the top 6, they get 8% of the total funding). Note that this isn't purely dedicated to climate change either. A large portion of R&D funding I would expect goes to R&D of energy-production technologies (nuclear, hydrogen, osmotic / hydropower methods) and energy storage (eg. EV batteries). Some also to upgrading monitoring systems and improving efficiencies of existing systems (food production, electrical grids). It isn't people in labs endlessly trying to validate that global warming is sensitive to C02 emissions. The research papers on that topic are well established and accessible to the public already, why kick a dead horse?

The potential costs of climate change are not trivial either. At the end of the day I don't think research should stop (mostly in the interests of the fossil fuel industry) just because it may or may not be 97% of scientists that agree with it. Such investment helps beyond just climate change (and its mitigation).


View attachment 31360
________________
On climate change being monetised
For corporations, yes. Marketing teams love it. Fun story; when attending my university they would advertise "100% clean energy supplied at campus" or something of the like. In reality they just outsourced a bunch to the grid and made use of a loophole in reporting.

But for politics/science, no I don't agree.

Have you considered that there's a buttload more money to be made in Fossil fuel usage (existing infrastructure and technology, readily available) than funding research teams and renewable sources? Trump latches onto fossil fuels for this reason, noting that environmental concerns are not a factor for him.

The fossil fuel industry reminds me of the Tabacco industry of old. Wouldn't be surprised if they actively spend $$$ opposing climate research and/or activism.

____________________
On author of that Forbes article
Agree with the author that the percentage stat is ambiguous (eg. what type of scientists? what do they agree on? what is the source? etc.). But I find this a bit immaterial given we've already established that modern scientific view = humans causing accelerated rates of global warming.

The author overall was fairly opinionated and expressed a general level of uncertainty about what the current scientific understanding is. His comment that jumped out to me was:

"Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels--which are crucial to the livelihood of billions."​

To me that gives away that the author doesn't really care about the implications of this topic anyways. Also, for some unknown reason ($?) the author appears motivated solely by protecting the fossil-fuel industry. Banning fossil fuel usage isn't even remotely in consideration at this stage, the whole idea is to research and develop scalable alternatives and/or more energy-efficient methods.

Once again you are cherry picking. There was a lot more in the 97% articles than the one comment you chose to highlight. Bottom line, the “97%” figure is seriously flawed but has been widely used to silence opposition. As to the $ question, I think you are forgetting the trillions in future revenue to be gained by replacing the worlds energy sources.

 

[Brookie1973]

One more just example of his continual lies (lets skip over the election, Biden bashing stuff)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1973029208000704900

It was not even close...but who cares right?

U.S. Overdose Deaths Drop 26.9% in 2024 - Prevention Technology Transfer Center (PTTC) Network

Annual drug overdose deaths reached their lowest level since 2019, down 26.9% from 110,037 in 2023 to 80,391 in 2024.

pttcnetwork.org

Maybe switch off the Fox News for a while.

 

[Brookie1973]

There are just so many from yesterday. I wonder who the enemy from within is?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1973027387383152644

Would you consider open border globalists as being enemies of a nation state?

 

[47MVEagle]

Maybe switch off the Fox News for a while.

Yeah, because Trump never actually said these things, right?

You’d rather stick your head in the sand though.

 

[Buddy Love]

Sometimes AI is awesome 👌

 

[h27272727]

Once again you are cherry picking. There was a lot more in the 97% articles than the one comment you chose to highlight. Bottom line, the “97%” figure is seriously flawed but has been widely used to silence opposition. As to the $ question, I think you are forgetting the trillions in future revenue to be gained by replacing the worlds energy sources.

Oh boy. Everything's some big deceitful plot, isn't it? What are we even arguing here? That climate change isn't the commonly held scientific opinion? That it's 80%, not 97%? 96%? 51%?

Between the 2012 apocolypse theory guy and the pro-fossil-fuel author/Forbes blog-post writer perhaps we should stop and reflect on the meaning of 'bias' and 'cherry picking'

Look I don't want to get too judgemental. I think I need to step it back a bit to get a better idea of where exactly you are coming from because I'm not quite understanding if your issue is with climate change research, science or just flat out establishment.

Im no educator - at least not a paid one. The Forbes article cynically suggests that 'the evidence isn't there'. I pointed you to the IPCC and NASA as a starter. The information is sitting literally right there. It's on a platter, members of the public can access it, critique it or challenge it. Ignoring it plays no part in the process of arriving at a truth / better model. If you want to pretend it isn't there and focus on semantics then that's OK. Just not what I thought this was about. I thought you believed current understanding should be attributed to X Y Z instead of A B C.

Aside from NASA/IPCC resources (and cited works), There's textbooks. Textbooks hundreds of pages long about not only the understood cause, but the ramifications and costs associated with ignoring the issue.

Staunchly defending the use of fossil fuels should not be a concern of you or I, that is for the fossil fuel industry to look after. When a more efficient source comes along it will lose market share and when that happens, so be it. If that efficient source also happens to be renewable, great

It is not cherry picking to skim over a rambling article of a hardcore fossil-fuel advocate (author of 'Fossil Future') on the topic of ... climate change. I read every word, and that is time I will never get back.

If you care about this topic than maybe this video will challenge your current understanding. If not, id be keen to know why not. But up to you as always

 

[Brookie1973]

Oh boy. Everything's some big deceitful plot, isn't it? What are we even arguing here? That climate change isn't the commonly held scientific opinion? That it's 80%, not 97%? 96%? 51%?

Between the 2012 apocolypse theory guy and the pro-fossil-fuel author/Forbes blog-post writer perhaps we should stop and reflect on the meaning of 'bias' and 'cherry picking'

Look I don't want to get too judgemental. I think I need to step it back a bit to get a better idea of where exactly you are coming from because I'm not quite understanding if your issue is with climate change research, science or just flat out establishment.

Im no educator - at least not a paid one. The Forbes article cynically suggests that 'the evidence isn't there'. I pointed you to the IPCC and NASA as a starter. The information is sitting literally right there. It's on a platter, members of the public can access it, critique it or challenge it. Ignoring it plays no part in the process of arriving at a truth / better model. If you want to pretend it isn't there and focus on semantics then that's OK. Just not what I thought this was about. I thought you believed current understanding should be attributed to X Y Z instead of A B C.

Aside from NASA/IPCC resources (and cited works), There's textbooks. Textbooks hundreds of pages long about not only the understood cause, but the ramifications and costs associated with ignoring the issue.

Staunchly defending the use of fossil fuels should not be a concern of you or I, that is for the fossil fuel industry to look after. When a more efficient source comes along it will lose market share and when that happens, so be it. If that efficient source also happens to be renewable, great

It is not cherry picking to skim over a rambling article of a hardcore fossil-fuel advocate (author of 'Fossil Future') on the topic of ... climate change. I read every word, and that is time I will never get back.

If you care about this topic than maybe this video will challenge your current understanding. If not, id be keen to know why not. But up to you as always

I thought you were the analytical guy who likes to crunch numbers to prove points? Now it doesn’t matter if 97% or 51% of scientists agree on man made climate change. You were the one who used the 97% first, I am just adopting your evidence based approach to refute it, and you get all defensive.

Do you think people wouldn’t be so cowered into not questioning the “science” if the real number is not 97% but 51%?

I go back to my original position. Science should be open-minded and willing to invite questioning and the continual reassessment of theories. Climate science is the opposite. Why? Politics and greed, neither of which belong anywhere near science. The fallacy of the 97% was the starting point for silencing dissent.