re: So many of you claim to be smart but deny climate change

quote:

---

I was kinda alluding to the fact that merely informing people went off the rails due to politics for some reason, the best way I know for people to immediately listen is to mess with their money, otherwise it seems they dont give a shite if it doesn't affect them within a lifetime.

---

Nobody wants their money messed with.
Seems everything is touched by politics these days.

Remember when you could watch TV and it didn't have a political message behind a show?
Or a movie?
Or celebrities kept their politics to themselves?
Or (And this was a long, long time ago) people didn't automatically line up against the other party's President? They might have differed in how things should get done, but they tried to work together.

Politics now touch every area of our lives. I absolutely hate it. The only reason I come to this board is to harass people and because football is not going on right now.

quote:

---

Wolfhound45

---

NO

quote:

---

Because I actually have a grasp on economics and how the world economy works.

---

I work in the shipping industry, I know whats going on.

quote:

---

I don't deny climate change.

I deny the doomsday scenarios politicians and celebrities have been pushing for the past 40 years.

---

Exactly. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. There has and will always be "climate change." The degree of human impact, or lack thereof, is the subject of debate and for me, the fact that the "problem" is described as "climate change" tells you a lot about the issue. "Climate change" is a nebulous term in which the proponent can never be wrong. Too much rain in Baton Rouge = climate change; too little rain in California = climate change; Too hot in New Zealand = climate change; Too cold in Mexico = climate change.

40 years ago there was a panic over the impending ice age. 20 or so years later once the predicted ice age catastrophe didn't come we had moved to a panic over "global warming." Now the impending catastrophe du jour is "climate change" because regardless of whether the earth gets too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too many earthquakes, too few earthquakes, the proponent of the "problem" can never be wrong. Any deviation in the climate from year to year, up, down, left, right, can ALWAYS be attributed to "climate change" for which there is ONLY one solution -- greater government regulation.

There has been significant industrialization on this planet for roughly 100 of its 4.5 billion years of existence. Yet, the climate was changing well before the industrial revolution. Can we say with 100% certainty that human activities don't have some degree of effect on the Earth's climate? Of course not. However, forgive me if I don't accept the opposite conclusion without any degree of skepticism or hesitation. That would be like watching Alabama's QB misfire on his first pass of the season next year and definitively concluding based upon that sample size it was time for Bama to fire Nick Saban and completely restructure the football program.

quote:

---

So many of you claim to be smart but deny climate change

---

"Fake" premise...

I have posted this info before in a different context, but it still makes the overall point...


Reflect on the fact that the guy below (who believes in cataclysmic climate change) has been accused of being a "climate change denier" by the true believers


That statement / position alone is pretty telling about the motivations of the current political movement (gradualists, uniformitarians...). There is no search for knowledge or truth from these folks. Some folks just want to be "right" to drive policy/funding/agendas...

quote:

---

While this knowledge is, at present, within the purview of a small but growing number of catastrophist geologists, astronomers, and other scientists, it has fallen completely by the wayside in the public discourse. For the present time politics dominates the discussion of global change, and there is a powerful political incentive to direct the discussion towards anthropogenic forcing to the exclusion of natural forces of change, for human behavior is subject to political control and natural forces of global change are not

---

Again, Randall proposes cataclysmic cosmic impacts as the source of radical changes to the earth and part of cyclical process that is downplayed by mainstream science


LINK

quote:

---

An open letter to a critic on the matter of chevrons, megatsunamis and bolide impacts.
by Randall Carlson

---

quote:

---

I am addressing this response to one issue raised regarding remarks about possible mega-tsunami deposits that I brought up during the podcast. It is my impression after investing a fair amount of time researching this phenomenon that it warrants serious consideration, especially in light of what we have witnessed during the past decade, two tsunami induced mega-disasters in Japan and the Indian Ocean. Several comments were particularly dismissive, so I am setting down this small exposition, without malice, to demonstrate that the remarks made on The Joe Rogan Experience were preceded by a substantial amount of background research and thought. While the following remarks pertain to this one issue specifically, they are also relevant to the general attitude evinced in many of the other comments critical of something I said that are obviously being made by individuals whose preconceived opinions were incompatible with the information I presented and their objections were nothing more than a knee jerk emotional response rather than a reasoned critique with some actual thought behind it.

---

Chevron forms created on a stream sandbar by local spring floods in Georgia, USA. The significant point is that these forms were produced by flowing water, not wind. After the flood subsides and the sand deposits dry out they will become subject to wind erosion and modification until they are stabilized by vegetation.




Chevron forms found on the southern tip of Madagascar. Were these formations created by wind or water? If the chevrons are formed of fine-grained wind transported sediment why is the line of demarcation at the distal end so distinct? What kind of aeolian process would produce features of this form and magnitude? The light colored deposits near the upper end of the chevrons are sand. This sand is undoubtedly being modified by wind, but this does not mean that the whole complex of lancet-like forms composing the chevrons were originally created by wind.

For scale...






---



Small scale parabolic dune forms and hummocky topography produced by local flooding in Peachtree Creek, GA are clearly visible in this photograph. The open end of the parabola seen in the top center points in the up-current direction which was from right to left. Again, these sedimentary forms are initially produced by flowing water and later modified by wind.



Large scale parabolic dune forms on the Rolling Palouse landscape of SE Washington State. Note the large parabolic shaped dune in the foreground. It opens upcurrent, flow was from right to left (north to south). Compare the general morphology of this landscape with the water shaped forms in the previous photograph. This landscape is the product of wind AND water. A study of mega-scale paleohydrology reveals the scale-invariant, or self-similar nature of fluvial forms across a wide variety of spatial scales and signifies its value as a means of comparison and recognition of mega features whose origins it is not possible to witness directly.









Summary:

-comet impact on North American icecap, images above (cooling was the existing paradigm prior to this)
-massive, cataclysmic flooding (see Washington state photo above)
-sea levels rise, massive amount of water vapor injected into the atmophere leading to a greenhouse effect/ rapid warming

Multiple impacts of varying scale have occurred leading to cyclical change....

Randall does a better job of describing this (in great, well referenced length) than I am above in this overview. His site and vids are definitely worth looking into.

LINK

Again, for emphasis....

quote:

---

While this knowledge is, at present, within the purview of a small but growing number of catastrophist geologists, astronomers, and other scientists, it has fallen completely by the wayside in the public discourse. For the present time politics dominates the discussion of global change, and there is a powerful political incentive to direct the discussion towards anthropogenic forcing to the exclusion of natural forces of change, for human behavior is subject to political control and natural forces of global change are not.

---

quote:

---

is unwilling to accept groupthink on faith.

---

I hope you don't refer to yourself as a Christian either. Because that would make you a huge hypocrite.

quote:

---

The climate has always changed

---

But not like this!!

One year we are on the verge of an ice age, and then 25 years later we are overheating!!!!!!

Our climate seems to change at the stroke of a pen.

quote:

---

The basic models used to fuse and interpret the raw data are flawed. They always have been and will be for the forseeable future. Human beings have not developed computational tools powerful enough to even make accurate weather predictions outside of a 5 day window. Yet you seem to think that accurate climate models can predict changes, with certainty, decades into future are somehow reliable enough to be the basis substantial, often punative, legislation for businesses and consumers.

---

This isn't a contradiction. I can't tell you whether the stock market will go up or down tomorrow. But I can tell you it'll probably be higher 40 years from now which is what makes index funds a good investment. There are lots of fields where short-term variability gives long-term predictions higher certainty.

quote:

---

If you had half a clue and an IQ somewhat greater than a knat, you'd look at the predictions made 20 years ago and what the actual measured results have turned out to be.

---

I don't know what a knat is but sure, we can look at that:

Using a Y range of only around 1 unit to make a plotted line look scary is not sound statistics.

quote:

---

One is falsifiable, the other is not. Science 101.

---

Look up nutrition research.