Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 181 to 197 of 197

Thread: Climate Hysteria Propaganda

  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    They don't care about their arguments. They care about getting, keeping, and wielding institutional power. To that end, their claims and arguments will change when and as needed, no matter how contradictorily.

    They need constant near-term peril in order to continuously impel their agenda - but the problem with the near-term is that it keeps expiring, so they have to keep renewing their peril "subscription", so to speak (but never for too long at a time).

    They keep doing it because it keeps working:

    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...23890191442229


    https://twitter.com/cloverhogan/stat...88111296225452
    to: https://twitter.com/cloverhogan/stat...88117055025232
    There doesn't need to be any facts or evidence to support anything. Heck I bet a man could put on a dress and call himself a woman and people would call him a woman.
    Heck a burly dude with a huge beard could get all pissed off at a clerk for calling him sir and tell the clerk he is a woman. If the clerk doesn't comply the clerk gets fired or arrested.
    No proof of facts needed.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #182

  4. #183

    https://rumble.com/v4pmi02-evita-duf...evolution.html
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  5. #184
    We finally found some man-made climate change. And it is harmful. It also has nothing to do with carbon, and is being done on purpose by government.

    https://twitter.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/...37181652840479



    https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/st...22496153026909




  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #185

  8. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    //

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    From the Department of the Quiet Part Out Loud:

    https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...16559853748351
    to: https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...16563938955298
    [thread archive: see hidden matter below]


    [additional matter hidden to save space]
     
    https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...16555844035045
    to: https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...18089281573092
    [thread archive: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...844035045.html
    {@PatrickTBrown31 | 05 September 2023}

    Last week, I described our paper on climate change and wildfires:
    I am very proud of this research overall. But I want to talk about how molding research presentations for high-profile journals can reduce its usefulness & actually mislead the public.

    For climate research, I think the crux of the issue is highlighted here in my thread:
    I mentioned that this research looked at the effect of warming in isolation but that warming is just one of many important influences on wildfires with others being changes in human ignition patterns and changes in vegetation/fuels.

    So why didn’t I include these obviously relevant factors in my research from the outset? Why did I focus exclusively on the impact of climate change?

    Well, I wanted the researche to get as widely disseminated as possible, and thus I wanted it to be published in a high-impact journal.

    Put simply, I've found that there is a formula for success for publishing climate change research in the most prestigious and widely-read scientific journals and unfortunately this formula also makes the research less useful.

    1) The first thing to know is that simply *showing* that climate change impacts something of value is usually sufficient, and it is not typically necessary to show that the impact is large compared to other relevant influences.

    In the paper, I focused on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior but did not quantify (i.e., I “held constant”) the influence of other obviously relevant factors like changes in human ignitions or the effect of poor forest management.

    I knew that considering these factors would make for a more realistic (and thus useful) analysis, but I also knew that it would muddy the waters of an otherwise clean story and thus make the research more difficult to publish.

    This type of framing, where the influence of climate change is unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers.

    For example, in another recent influential Nature paper, they calculated that the two largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to extreme heat and damage to agriculture.
    However, that paper does not mention that climate change is not the dominant driver for either one of these impacts: temperature-related deaths have been declining, and agricultural yields have been increasing for decades despite climate change.
    2) This brings me to the second component of the formula, which is to ignore or at least downplay near-term practical actions that can negate the impact of climate change.

    If deaths related to outdoor temperatures are decreasing and agricultural yields are increasing, then it stands to reason that we can overcome some major negative effects of climate change. It is then valuable to study this success so that we can facilitate more of it.

    However, there is a taboo against studying or even mentioning successes since they are thought to undermine the motivation for greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

    Identifying and focusing on problems rather than studying the effectiveness of solutions makes for more compelling abstracts that can be turned into headlines, but it is a major reason why high-profile research is not as useful to society as it could be.

    3) A third element of a high-profile climate change research paper is to focus on metrics that are not necessarily the most illuminating or relevant but serve more to generate impressive numbers.

    In the case of my paper, I followed the common convention of focusing on changes in the risk of extreme events rather than simpler and more intuitive metrics like changes in intensity.
    The sacrifice of clarity for the sake of more impressive numbers was probably necessary for it to get into Nature.

    Another related convention, which I also followed in my paper, is to report results corresponding to time periods that are not necessarily relevant to society but, again, get you the large numbers that justify the importance of your research.

    For example, it is standard practice to report climate change related societal impacts associated with how much warming has occurred since the industrial revolution but to ignore or “hold constant” societal changes over that time.

    This makes little sense from a practical standpoint since the influence of societal changes have been much larger than the influence of climate changes on people since the 1800s.

    Similarly, it is conventional to report projections associated with distant future warming scenarios now (or always) thought to be implausible (RCP8.5) while ignoring potential changes in technology and resilience.

    A much more useful analysis for informing actual decisions we face would focus on changes in climate from the recent past that living people have experienced to the foreseeable future - the next several decades - while accounting for changes in technology and resilience.

    In the case of our research, this would mean considering the impact of climate change in conjunction with proposed reforms to forest management practices over the next several decades. This is what we are doing in the current phase of the research.
    This more practical kind of analysis is discouraged because looking at changes in impacts over shorter time periods and in the context of other relevant factors reduces the calculated magnitude of the impact of climate change, and thus it appears to weaken the case for greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

    So why did I follow this formula for producing a high-profile scientific research paper if I don’t believe it creates the most useful knowledge for society? I did it because I began this research as a new assistant professor facing pressure to establish myself in a new field and to maximize my prospects of securing respect from my peers, future funding, tenure, and ultimately a successful career.

    When I had previously attempted to deviate from the formula I outlined here…
    …my papers were promptly rejected out of hand by the editors of high-profile journals without even going to peer review.

    To put it bluntly, I sacrificed value added for society in order to mold the presentation of the research to be compatible with the preferred narratives of the editors and reviewers of high-profile journals.

    I am bringing these issue to light because I hope that highlighting them will push for reforms that will better align the incentives of researchers with the production of the most useful knowledge for society.

    I write more about this today in a piece in The Free Press:
    I also have more thoughts on my personal blog:
    I wonder if this guy learned something from Boghossian and Lindsay?
    That (or something like it) is my guess.

    Given that the "Grievance Papers" were concerned with social "science" (LOL), Boghossian, Lindsay, & Pluckrose had a great deal of leeway when it came to cranking the absurdity up to 11. The pro forma pretense of "objective" data and "rigorous" analysis in The ScienceTM doesn't afford such broad latitude.

  9. #187
    Research paper for anyone interested:

    Last Glacial Maximum pattern effects reduce climate sensitivity estimates

    If they're reducing climate sensitivity estimates today, I think that means that the science from last week was not settled.


    Article summarizing the research:
    Ice age data analysis offers good news for Earth’s current climate woes
    Last edited by Voluntarist; 04-20-2024 at 10:29 PM.
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.

  10. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntarist View Post
    Research paper for anyone interested:

    Last Glacial Maximum pattern effects reduce climate sensitivity estimates

    If they're reducing climate sensitivity estimates today, I think that means that the science from last week was not settled.


    Article summarizing the research:
    Ice age data analysis offers good news for Earth’s current climate woes
    If a consensus cannot be had on things in front of our eyes that we can feel and touch, how can we believe what they say about 20 million years ago?

  11. #189

  12. #190
    https://twitter.com/newstart_2024/st...07197217837104



    Last edited by acptulsa; 04-25-2024 at 08:32 AM.

  13. #191

  14. #192



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #193
    Somewhat related. The final solution:


    https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/...62520575500625
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  17. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    //

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    https://twitter.com/LPMisesCaucus/st...46677436317795


    14 U.S. Cities Sign WEF Treaty To Ban Meat, Diary, Private Cars by 2030
    https://www.planet-today.com/2023/08...ty-to-ban.html
    Planet Today (20 August 2023)

    The WEF-infiltrated U.S. cities have formed a coalition called the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group” (C40).

    The C40 has established a “target” to meet the WEF’s radical depopulation goals by the year 2030.

    [...]

  18. #195
    And here's their solution. Destroy the natural environment.

    Carbon credits, mitigation credits, follow the money. It's another monetary/securitization scam.


    https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/1787511834179965028
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  19. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    And here's their solution. Destroy the natural environment.

    Carbon credits, mitigation credits, follow the money. It's another monetary/securitization scam.
    A dangerous one.

    https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/...24785170190752


  20. #197

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-24-2021, 02:10 PM
  2. MSM: Why won't people believe our climate change propaganda?
    By Matt Collins in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-21-2020, 12:41 PM
  3. Climate Hysteria Unwarranted
    By Ronin Truth in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-05-2014, 11:21 AM
  4. MIT Professor Exposes Climate Change Hysteria
    By Ronin Truth in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-20-2014, 12:16 AM
  5. Climate Facts Ignored Amid Hysteria at UN Summit in Doha
    By FrankRep in forum National Sovereignty
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-2012, 08:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •