DM to the Biden Bros
Comments
-
Kinda funny,
"The views expressed in American Meteorological Society Policy Program memos are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Meteorological Society, its members, or sponsors."
Anyway, good, I'm glad, we have one source, finally, AMS. Any others?
-
How about the University of East Anglia where Michael Mann made up his hockey stick with fake temperature data and then he and his university refused access to raw data and then the damning emails. The US has been altering historical temperature data decreasing historical high temperatures and increasing more modern temperatures. Toss in the urban heat island impact where most of the claimed warming is occurring at night as cement, black top and large building release heat stored during the day. The tell is our self-proclaimed scientist has offered no solution other than the failing solution of government fascism of mandated expensive dirty non-reliable renewable solar and wind while giving the chicoms a pass. Then all that hard science that was telling us that snowfall would be a thing of the past, no glaciers in the Alps, no ice caps, a flooded New York City all to have occurred a decade/decades ago.
-
-
I was right
-
Did you read the OP? This isn't a climate change thread but a thread to establish legitimate sources. I take it materials from Google scholar are considered legitimate as well then?
Good, I hope we can build on this list. Where else is acceptable for news and information?
-
Also, since you clearly want to make me repeat my sources that I've already posted, here's this recent landmark study for you on economic impact.
-
I posted a video of an actual scientist - with more scientific brain power in his pinky toe than you could wish for - explain how the real science was manipulated (out-right fabrication) for political gain. That man is not lying. And all you could focus on is the platform it came from, no substance. I've watched the same scientist explain the substance of the real graph using extensive ice sheet core sampling. Real, actual science.
You claim pseudoscience with no source, not alternate evidence, nothing. At this point calling someone a pseudoscientist is as worthless as calling someone a racist or white supremacist. It means nothing anymore due to overuse. By you, the HARD Left.
.
Moreover, the disagreements I can remember with my conservative/maga brethren.
@UW_Doog_Bot China, Peter Zeihan
@creepycoug Abortion, Israel/Palestine
@WestlinnDuck Israel/Palestine
@RaceBannon Israel/Palestine
@PostGameOrangeSlices Ukraine
@DerekJohnson Video Sources
Contrary to popular HARD left opinion, conversation and real debate happen around here.
.
-
Nature huh.
-
Oh yeah, I forgot that you asked us for where we get all our information out of the blue. That was weird.
-
If you can't handle up ups and downs of thread-jacking, maybe doogman is more your speed?
.
-
Sentence #1, Agree.
Sentence #2, Disagree. I've cited sources.
.
-
Bottom line
Findings reached independently by multiple assessments are particularly strong. Three broad conclusions follow from multiple highly credible assessments: 1) people are causing climate to change, particularly through emissions of greenhouse gases, 2) human-caused climate change poses very serious risks to humanity, and 3) there are many risk management options available that can meaningfully address climate change.
- Maybe 2. No. 3. Unlikely
Hope this helps.
.
-
You beat me to the punch. Nature.com get everything wrong about Covid. Everything.
#science
.
-
Now now, we aren't here to attack sources, which is after all, a fallacy of rhetoric.
I'll give @CallMeBigErn credit, he's listed three more than anyone else from the left. I hope we can continue to build on the list.
-
You should know idgaf and know how to stay on target.
-
If you must know, nothing specific. I read some Foreign Affairs, the New Yorker, The Atlantic, Axios newsletters, various sci journals, AP News app, I use RSS aggregators sometimes. I listen to Up First and the Telegram Ukraine pod some mornings. I browse r/UkrainianConflict, r/guitarlessons, r/Mariners, and r/discgolf alot. I poke my head in on r/news sometimes to see if anything catches my eye. r/politics is ehhh. Too many Slate-type articles. I watch a lot of music theory videos on YouTube. That's my biggest thing lately while I do some physical therapy on a bulged disc I suffered. I listen to Softy sometimes and have my Twitter curated to sports only. Disinformation and propaganda fascinates me so I spend a lot of time researching that stuff lately as well. This forum has contributed to it. I could go on. I pick and choose. Everything is out there. I have a lot of interests. Just have to understand how to read news and information to know what's bullshit and what isn't.
Now, how about you?
-
I do know. Well. Thus I didn't think I needed to add a sarcasm disclaimer.
.
-
The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and Axios explain everything. The biggest TDS rags around. And you think you are a moderate.
.
-
Who couldn't see that comin?
When I see something interesting, sure. It's usually a rec through my Pocket or Refind app. I aint hung up on em or nothin'. I'm big into the Russia/Ukraine conflict so that's the majority of my article reads sometimes. I seek whatever intrigues me.
-
Awesome! A much improved contribution.
Ftr fuck Vanilla, new quote function is aids. Anyway, I love telegram as there's a lot of primary source material out there. Getting tougher and tougher though with improved cgi, ai, and just the level of editing that people are capable of to differentiate. Substack is great for following individual journos doing investigative journalism. I check AP and MSN just to see what the latest narrative generator is spinning. Follow through on YouTube and X for a few things.
Everything is with a massive grain of salt as everyone has a motive or even if they have integrity are viewing things through the myriad lenses that have been created to distort reality. I try to think of it as a short hand bayesian analysis with a statistical sampling of sources.
Can we agree that it is harder than ever to vet sources and that indeed, the msm has gotten A LOT wrong the last however many years at this point?
-
Bottom line
Findings reached independently by multiple assessments are particularly strong. Three broad conclusions follow from multiple highly credible assessments: 1) people are causing climate to change, particularly through emissions of greenhouse gases, 2) human-caused climate change poses very serious risks to humanity, and 3) there are many risk management options available that can meaningfully address climate change.
What has been the climate change so far and how currently is it affecting humanity?
- Food production is up. GDP is up. Population is up. New York City isn't under water. Ice caps are still there. It still snows.
Human-caused climate change poses very serious risks to humanity
2. When are we facing a serious risk to humanity? Next year? Two decades ago? How many years left to act? Should the US go it alone to avoid the serious risks or should we commit economic suicide and give the chicoms a pass?
There are many risk management options available that can meaningfully address climate change.
3. What are some of the many risk management options available? Are Nukes and LNG replacing coal in your risk management options that you never mention?
More world salad, signifying nothing that suggests you have a science degree and don't work for the government.
-
-
You post this shit and they've been caught cooking the books a zillion tims! Refusing to include anything that shows a different outcome. Blackballing scientists who disagree and have different outcomes than the ones the governments are paying them millions for with the requested outcome. Then they can shut doown energy travel corral and kill the majority of the population. Better read up on Gates, Soros. WEF and especially Noah Uval Hirari.
You either one of them or you've been duped. Time to wake up!
-
Yeah I'll read some Substacks in my email when they come around the bend. I completely agree on investigative journalism. Books, articles, and documentaries alike. I always trend towards that stuff, especially Ukraine over the last few years.
I don't even know what MSM means, it's a broad trope with no meaning to me. If you mean the NY Times, sure they got some stuff wrong. Whatever. News has been getting it wrong sometimes since the dawn of news. Was some of that political, sure. That's how it goes. I'm not sure how much has changed besides the opinion section getting amplified due to social media. Anyway, their influence is dying away anyway. We are in a new age. If you mean cable nightly television, eh, I stopped watching that stuff long ago. It became way too ESPN-like. Where I draw the line is drawing an equivelance between what MSM got wrong and whatever this other crap is. There is no comparison. Overall I try to keep an arm's distance from American politics in general, at least till October. It depresses me too much, and I don't enjoy it eating at my well-being. I try not to engage it as deeply as other things. I regret coming in here every time but climate science ended up being a trigger.
Vetting sources, absolutely. It's terrible. There's courses now on how to ingest media and vet sources. There's free ones online. Should be a requirement in K-12 as far as I'm concerned.
Your response was the first actual pleasantry anyone has ever exchanged with me in here. Thank you sir. You're too kind. -
CallMeBigErnMember, Swaye's WigwamPosts: 4,080
"The dude mixes mythology and pseudoscience and is considered quite the outcast. He calls himself The Renegade Scholar. He's a charlatan.
Find me a 99% consensus across 90,000 studies."
Doesn't exist. it's not a vote and we know they exclude all with different outcomes. We call that a scam. A communist scam actually.
-
I must rephrase keeping American politics at arm's length. That means engaging on forums and Twitter. I know what's a goin' on 'round here.
-
Your alleged "knowledge" is hidden by evasion and avoidance. When the rubber hits the road no functional difference between mello and Big Ern.
-
This is thunder dome make no mistake. I'll disagree with plenty of what you said regarding media, I think it's deteriorated much more but we can agree to disagree. The point is whether you want to engage in good faith debate or not though.
I'll talk to literally just about anyone that can engage honestly. Say what you want about the miscreants in here but most of them have integrity unlike H or Mello. "We" disagree about plenty but I'd have a beer and laugh about it with just about each and everyone of them.
Takes all kinds and not for the weak though. Poor @YellowSnow got run because he's a soft rowboat Peter puffer.
-
Wild place for a good faith fact-based civil debate on much of anything if you ask me. Alone in a MAGA Thunder Dome being pelted with rocks of disinformation, social media propaganda, and insults raining down from every direction. Disinformation and attacks on science trigger me sometimes but this ain't my scene, I promise. I try to be a peaceful man. This ain't a peace palace. It sucked me in, I have to claw out now. I've tried this hard to find someone with a sense of civility to admit an issue exists as a BASELINE for debate, and even that was a tough nut. I feel wholly satisfied. I don't know how the other liberals keep it up. I don't know how this gang keeps it up. Goddamn piranhas.
-
A never ending freaking supply. Brags about his science superiority and then exhibits nothing of the sort. Summary conclusions and no ability to engage. Apparently questions are not peaceful.
