It's supposed to be trustworthy.
lets just say it tries hard to be so
Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)
Sort:
I have a special project for the geniuses among us:
just ask epsilon due. he knows e/t abt e/t.
It's fascinating how simple it is to take total control of someone with a barely functioning brain with a few simple words.
It's fortunate I didn't say the sky isn't really blue or our resident nitwit would be running to and fro for days claiming "fester said the sky is red because if it's not blue it must be red right?"
u kinda took control a me a long time ago. sadly ? ...im having to tell u this as u didnt consciously figure that out for urself.
There's a lot of things about you I can't figure out.
19 days ago
0
#31207
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Yeah. But if you can't experience it then it doesn't really matter does it? We agree local climate only exists because of global climate, right? So like the internet says, wouldn't the ONLY way to experience global climate be locally?
I think of it like the sun. Someone like Fester might insist that we cannot experience the sun locally. Only the local effects of the sun. I would understand what he's thinking, that the sun is so far away and it's so big and it's influence is so large that we can't have a small "personal" experience with the sun. So I would ask the same question, if you can't experience it locally, can it be experienced at all?
You should be aware that there are exactly two possibilities here. Either
- all those who have expertise in the relevant fields have been wrong since around 1800 (when the basic scientific concepts relating to climate change were considered by physical scientists) and especially in the last half century or more (when there have been specialists devoting all their time to working in this area) in even thinking there even was an objective subject of any significance to be studied
or - you are spouting nonsense because you combine being unable to understand the relevant concepts and a sort of supreme arrogance that your nonsensical pronouncements are of interest to others, and you are doing so despite it having been pointed out to you on several occasions what you are failing to understand
Hint: it's not number 1.
So goodbye.
Hallelujah.
19 days ago
0
#31210
Anyways, I think my gas audi is great for the environment (jk jk lol)
swapnil2015 wrote:
jkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
Enjoy your upcoming vacation, I guess.
Another tiny yet significant piece of the climate change puzzle that is not coming together nicely:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tick-populations-booming-across-u-093000357.html
19 days ago
0
#31213
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
It's supposed to be trustworthy.
lets just say it tries hard to be so
science itself depends on objectivity. Science is neither about trust nor distrust.
Science labs are not banks. And although there is funding there are not 'deposits'.
Trust and distrust happen within the person who is to trust or distrust - especially if that person wants to make it all about 'trust' and 'their trust'.
And there are a very gigantic number of such persons.
But most of the time a significant lack of trust - with trust being the issue - happens against companies not against science which aims to be generic.
Science depends on math - which is about as generic as something can get.
im sooo worried abt the state a affairs going on right now pluto that i could hardly sleep last nite. yes im very concerned abt gw but this superdupercedes.
19 days ago
0
#31215
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
im sooo worried abt the state a affairs going on right now pluto that i could hardly sleep last nite. yes im very concerned abt gw but this superdupercedes.
I think I get it L.
I can't say it directly here but I think you could mean in the US or in Eurasia or both.
As for me I'm sure glad I've gotten well into my second month with no coffee and no sugar to go with it therefore and that's requiring less will power now to continue resisting.
And no buying cheese except when eating in restaurants.
Fourth month of that continuing resistance.
wha-why ?? ...u needta go enjoy the finest things in life ...& u know what THAT means ! lol !
19 days ago
0
#31217
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
wha-why ?? ...u needta go enjoy the finest things in life ...& u know what THAT means ! lol !
Gaining weight is not one of 'the finest things in life' ... nor is messing up kidney/liver and other functions with a lot of useless sugar calories.
and at my age its 'asking for extra trouble' to allow things like that to happen.
I hope you solve that sleep thing. You probably will. You're still young.
The thing about sleep is it can be a difficult thing to force. Almost like it has a will of its own.
At 92 George Burns was asked how many cigars he smokes daily. He said 9 or 11. When suggested he should ask his doctor about it he said "My doctor is dead". When asked what his friends thought he said "They're all dead".
I eat what I want, drink when I want and may take up smoking cigars, again.
Live life to the fullest every day.
19 days ago
0
#31219
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
wha-why ?? ...u needta go enjoy the finest things in life ...& u know what THAT means ! lol !
Means different things to different people.
Anyway, IFP, why exactly do you believe climate change isn’t something to worry about?
Honestly, I thought there might be a little more comment about what Elroch said, the story presented.
The reason there isn't anything to worry about is because of what Fester said, it cannot be experienced. (presumably locally or otherwise)
And just like anything other physical thing, if it can't be experienced it wouldn't make sense to worry about it. Airline flights, rain, snow, sunburn, deep sea fishing, hiking, pretty much anything we can think of. If we can't experience them, it wouldn't make any sense to worry about them.
The effects of climate change are wide-ranging. The global temperature doesn’t go up, the global average goes up. You can’t experience global climate, but the climate of the region you live in will probably change. That will affect the local climate.
The difference between the global temperature going up and the global average temperature going up is enormous. If the global temperature went up by 1.5C Earth would become slightly hotter. However, that isn’t all climate change does. It also makes the temperature distribution more extreme. That’s something to worry about. A place that was merely chilly earlier could end up ice cold as a result of a change in the regional climate. Or could have its temperature raised drastically. So the effects of climate change would be experienced by you. And the temperatures being more extreme means that areas could have an odd mix of extremely hot and extremely cold areas which used to be moderate.
The climate in one region can affect the climate in another (El Nino and La Niña). The ‘system’ that used to make the planet more liveable is being disrupted. The temperatures aren’t meant to be this extreme.
The global temperature statistics are misinterpreted by those rejecting climate science.
And those particular figures don't convey the nature of the problems anyway.
True, but if misinterpretations are corrected, then climate science is made more palatable. Eventually, the person in question could accept it.
The misinterpretations can't be 'corrected' except by those misinterpreting.
And 'the people in question' (over one billion of them) don't want to 'accept it'.
That's the point. For them its not about accuracy or logic or proof or evidence - its about 'trust' and them 'not liking and not trusting'.
A few posts later somebody said that the science is 'supposed' to be trustworthy ....
----------------------
But trust is up to the truster/distruster.
When and if somebody doesn't want to trust something or somebody they won't.
Is it that simple? The results indicate that.
Including in these forums - we see that 'not wanting to trust' dynamic played out year in year out.
Why is trust so important for the one billion plus 'dissenters with climate science'?
Because of a simliar thing - that's the way they want to see it.
They choose to see it that way and have it that way.
That its 'their trust' that is key.
(The word 'trust' is printed on money. Banks often have 'trust' in their name. Yes - 'trust' is major)
This is SO true. When trust is lost, it can be very difficult (often impossible) to restore.
We can take any classic example of lost trust. From that point on almost no amount of evidence, logic or proof matters does it? For example "I promise I won't ever do that again, you can check my emails to prove it". Checking emails helps, but it doesn't restore trust. Only time and genuine remorse restores trust.
We have the example here of lost trust in so called "science". When the state of Oregon miscategorized covid deaths, trust was lost. Indisputable evidence was shoved in their face of what they did. They didn't deny it, they just justified it. And what happens when someone tries to justify lost trust? It becomes even MORE impossible to restore that trust. There is no remorse, no genuine changing of their ways.
This is how the divide occurs that can be difficult to bridge. If you want to find agreement, you have to make concessions. You have to admit fault, you have to say yes, we screwed up on that and we will do better. Digging the heels in and insisting the error was justified only deepens the divide and ensures trust is not wanted or needed.