Not watched the video but often scientists will do this, they'll say whatever the politicians want to hear to get funding to spend on what they really want to study.Originally Posted by Letters
They can be among the least trustworthy people.
Not watched the video but often scientists will do this, they'll say whatever the politicians want to hear to get funding to spend on what they really want to study.
They can be among the least trustworthy people.
Right. The really trustworthy people are some bloke on YouTube with no qualifications and experience in the relevant field and just by coincidence happens to be saying something that fits what you want to believe. Those are the people to listen to
This is how Brexit happened, you know.
By the way, and yes yes it's the BBC so, but I'm sure there are other sources of this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58982445
Countries are lobbying scientists to downplay the effects of fossil fuels. Because of course they are. An NQ says, follow the money. Yes, there's a lot of money to be made in green technologies but you know where else there's a lot of money? Oil. Have you seen Dubai?
Right. The really trustworthy people are some bloke on YouTube with no qualifications and experience in the relevant field and just by coincidence happens to be saying something that fits what you want to believe. Those are the people to listen to
This is how Brexit happened, you know.
How about other scientist that the MSM don't give a platform to?
I've worked in science I know how it goes.
You're always going to get some debate and range of opinions in a scientific community. If 'x' percent of scientists in a certain field agree on something then the higher 'x' gets the more likely it is to be right.
With the caveat that science should always be open to the possibility that it's wrong.
It's unlikely that 'x' will ever be 100% so sure, you can always wheel out someone to present a counter argument. Should the MSM give a platform to every outlying opinion? There are still young earth creationists around, should that be taught as an equally plausible idea as an old earth and evolution?
In the video I posted the dude goes through some old models - ones which are sometimes claimed to have been inaccurate as part of the narrative that these climate scientists don't know what they're doing.
He shows that actually the model wasn't bad, but the model is dishonestly misrepresented by some people with a certain agenda - the model made 3 predictions, one was a worst case scenario, one was a middle ground and one was a more optimistic one, depending on the rate of CO2 emissions and whether countries cut back on them or not. The middle prediction was about right, as were a bunch of other models he mentions in the video.
That does give some confidence that they do know what they're doing. And sure, you can find some hysterical stuff about how we'll all be dead in 10 years, but that doesn't mean the underlying science is wrong.
And there it is - some bloke on YouTube, as if our Christian hero hadn't used his own "bloke on YouTube" to shoot the messenger. Get the mirror. And the repetition of the diversion. Some "bloke on YouTube" takes a newspaper article by Professor Ethical written in 1990 and then comments on the stunning reversal and absolute contradictions of Prof. Ethical's 2020 claims. What's needed here is a bullet in the head of the bloke on YouTube because, the damn nerve. And anyone who listens to him is mentally ill. The only sane people in this piece is the guy who contradicts himself annually and the disciple who follows him around.Right. The really trustworthy people are some bloke on YouTube with no qualifications and experience in the relevant field and just by coincidence happens to be saying something that fits what you want to believe. Those are the people to listen to
This is how Brexit happened, you know.
Good to know.
Für eure Sicherheit
Here our hero is equating the corruption and endless profit incentive of one notorious industry in an attempt to paint another notoriously corrupt and endlessly profit hungry industry as virtuous by default. The argument goes, oil companies are evil therefore their competition must be saintly. He doesn't seem to know the "green" corporations are owned, lock, stock and oil barrel, by the same major shareholders who are now earning double bubble. Two pigs rolling in the same muck, so letters gets his lipstick out and picks a pig.By the way, and yes yes it's the BBC so
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58982445
Countries are lobbying scientists to downplay the effects of fossil fuels. Because of course they are. An NQ says, follow the money. Yes, there's a lot of money to be made in green technologies but you know where else there's a lot of money? Oil. Have you seen Dubai?
He probably also believes electric cars run on magic and we can all survive on the food Saint Gates is glooping into existence in his Frankenstein lab. In the meantime there are plenty of bugs out there that granny can eat while she's freezing to death for the cause of mock virtue. We're not sure when the earth is due to end next, after a string of false alarms, but we do know that Blackrock will profit all the way to the apocalypse with people like letters cheering them on. It's an easy fan club for the wilfully uneducated.
Für eure Sicherheit
You don't seem to understand how conversation works online. There isn't "a" focused topic and I didn't ignore what you said.
I did shoot the messenger and I explained why - that bloke doesn't have any credentials in climate science. But I did also deal with his videos, there's a whole paragraph about it which you completely ignored.
That's not what he does in the video you posted. He talks about some historic extreme weather events which isn't a million miles away from "it's snowing today, checkmate warmists!"Heller takes THEIR facts from yesterday and compares them to THEIR facts today.
But the other thing he does is misrepresent climate science. He makes the claim about CO2 levels increasing after temperature increases. He is correct, but he's talking about the pre-Industrial world when natural temperature changes kick started processes which in turn led to CO2 increases. That is very different to the post-Industrial world where CO2 has risen and that has caused warming.
So yeah, I shot your messenger and his message. You then shot my messenger and ignored his message. I shot your messenger because he's a conspiracy theorist - not just about climate stuff. So I see why you like him. But he has no relevant credentials in climate science. You shot my messenger seemingly because he has relevant credentials.
It's interesting how you claim I misrepresent you and then you post stuff like this. It's so dishonest. It's not that your messenger is "some bloke on YouTube".And there it is - some bloke on YouTube, as if our Christian hero hadn't used his own "bloke on YouTube" to shoot the messenger.
What I said is "some bloke on YouTube with no qualifications and experience in the relevant field"
See how you "accidentally" left out the part in bold?
Again, if you're going to complain about being misrepresented then you probably shouldn't start making shit like this up.anyone who listens to him is mentally ill
Confirmation bias and Dunning Kruger are not mental illnesses, they are psychological effects. Ones that we are all subject to up to a point. The only way to mitigate that is by introspection, something you repeatedly show yourself unable of.
Yeah well obviously I'm not touching that mess of excuses.
So instead, some bird on the internet (of colour - so be very careful what you say about her). She explains how there are experts and "experts".
I'm not even hoping to make you snap back to reality today letters, not when there are posts on here with you apologising for people being rounded up by the army and put in camps. All I'm doing is placing markers so when even you have to confront the inevitability of your blind compliance you may think back and find some sort of foothold back to humanity.
Für eure Sicherheit
Literally said (about the Australian response to the pandemic) that while it has worked in terms of death numbers:
And I was clear that I'm glad our government haven't gone down that route. But keep lying if you like.at what cost to liberty, mental health and their economy.
Reply With Quote
