Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Page 21 of 53 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 523
  1. #201
    Old but keen Mark Chase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kent UK
    Posts
    4,144
    Likes (Given)
    885
    Likes (Received)
    2585
    Quote Originally Posted by jturner View Post

    How about genuine peer-reviewed scientific papers and studies? I know that they are unlikely to agree with your world-view but then again, that should be worth pondering on. It is possible it is all a lie and a con.... or it might be you're incorrect.

    Yes, plenty of that on You Tube sadly most of it is not accessible outside this environment unless the paper is published for public access.

    Also, lectures and tasks by eminent scientists on You Tube is an excellent way to get leads on what papers to seek out.

    As said I have tried exhaustively but many are not available for public viewing.

  2. #202
    Pedantic Pig Divemouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Suffolk
    Posts
    7,485
    Likes (Given)
    10430
    Likes (Received)
    5228
    errrrr Not if we evolved post-asteroid event
    Everything that is alive now evolved both before and after the asteroid event - evolution is an ongoing process. Anything that only evolved after it would have had to come magically into being from nothing. It stopped some gene lines in their tracks, might have nudged others, but it didn't invent any.
    Definitely don't doubt Dawn - not if you value your life

  3. #203
    Old but keen Mark Chase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kent UK
    Posts
    4,144
    Likes (Given)
    885
    Likes (Received)
    2585
    Quote Originally Posted by notdeadyet View Post
    I'm really hoping Mark is not going down the Young Earth Creationist route.

    Don't be a dick I am a hardcore atheist which is why I also do not believe in the religious cult of Climate Catastrophe


    As with diving, I use my pragmatic and practical engineers brain to look at what's on offer do a bit of research and decide what's bollocks and what's useful

    A LOT of the climate change guff is just total bollocks some of it is useful

    Key facts of the Climate Crusade: Renewable Energy = Total Bollocks, impractical too expensive and accounts for around 1% of energy demands world wide. Electric Cars = Total Bollocks they cost more C02 to build than they save throughout their life span and create problems with tyre particulates road damage and increased mortality and that's ignoring the Child labor slaves digging up the rare metals in Chinese run Congo to make them work.

    Air source heat pumps in the UK? Total bollocks, unworkable too expensive and not efficient enough

    And with cars and the push towards electricity (from our gas and coal power power stations) the grid is simply not there to meet demand.

    Some good things like energy efficient housing developments but lets face it retro fitting the current housing stock is again impractical and expensive.


    The problem is, the Climate Faithfull have no terms for describing someone like me who suggests duhhh of course climate change will happen and there's fec all we can do about it because we wont do population control and we won't give up our toys. And even if we did? The climate would still change. You don't cover most of the land mass with roads and buildings without influencing the climate. You don't put 8 billion people on Earth without influencing the climate.

    The harp on about climate deniers???

    The only idiot bigger than the Climate Catastrophe idiot is a Climate Change Denier idiot

    The climate catastrophe idiots have been proven wrong over and over again yet we still suffer their bilge and I reckon we have about another 25 years of putting up with this bollocks before people start to realize it all smoke and mirrors.

    That is of course unless we have another proper war, then people with too much time on their hands will have something serious to worry about and the issue will disappear.

  4. #204
    Nicotine, valium, vicodin... notdeadyet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Room 531
    Posts
    8,926
    Likes (Given)
    2319
    Likes (Received)
    7180
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Chase View Post
    errrrr Not if we evolved post-asteroid event
    I'm not really sure what you mean by this. If you mean anatomically modern humans, we evolved about 59.7 million years after the impact. But everything that is alive today has a lineage that goes back to pre- this impact event. Your ancestor was one of those furry lemurs in the article. It had ancestors that were something else. They may not be anatomically the same animals but the lineage goes back. Humans didn't just appear one day in isolation, there was no Adam and Eve with no ancestors. Everything came from something else.

    The first human was homo habilis, about 2.5m years ago. But homo habilis didn't just appear, they had australopithecus ancestors who also had ancestors that were something else all the way back, changing species and changing genus as they went. Homo sapiens, us, only appeared maybe 300k years ago. One thing is for sure, there were no humans co-existing with dinosaurs.
    Last edited by notdeadyet; 29-06-2023 at 03:34 PM.
    Caliph Hamish Aw-Michty Ay-Ya-Bastard, Spiritual leader of Scottish State in England

  5. #205
    Gimme a medal BenL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Exiled Plymothian in Enfield
    Posts
    1,380
    Likes (Given)
    855
    Likes (Received)
    794
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Chase View Post
    Someone suggested Humans couldn't survive in the era of Dinasors.

    Apparently, they not only did but also managed to survive an extinction-level event


    https://www.aol.co.uk/news/human-anc...160601503.html
    Raquel Welch fought off a giant tortoise, after all.
    I don't want to get technical or anything, but alcohol IS a solution

  6. #206
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    3,608
    Likes (Given)
    1420
    Likes (Received)
    1649
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Chase View Post
    Don't be a dick I am a hardcore atheist which is why I also do not believe in the religious cult of Climate Catastrophe


    As with diving, I use my pragmatic and practical engineers brain to look at what's on offer do a bit of research and decide what's bollocks and what's useful
    And that right there is the problem.

    Firstly, belief has nothing to do with it. This is science, not religion. Secondly, you might use your "pragmatic and practical engineers brain to look at what's on offer" but you almost certainly don't know much about the topic being discussed. Your engineering experience is probably no more relevant to the science of global climate change than mine is to neuroscience. The scientific community is offering up various studies, theories and recorded data to be discussed and evaluated. You chose "what's on offer" (unless you are telling me that you have read every single study on the topic), you probably barely understood it, and did so with all the personal biases we all have when processing information (and I mean no disrespect by that, as it is a very specialised field so pretty much everyone outside of that field won't understand it properly, and as for our biases, that's just being human) and so you end up with only an opinion to offer. Despite what you say, you have done no research (though I'm happy to be redirected to the published studies you have led or participated in?). You admitted yourself - you have literally done a Google search, i.e. using a searching tool that is known to provide you with results based on what it thinks you want to see. You can decide on "what's bollocks and what's useful" to your heart's content but that is nothing more than your own opinion, complete with all those biases at play again.

    In the meantime, a very large number of scientists from around the world, often with the greatest level of understanding on the topic that there is, have been studying the subject in depth for years/decades. Various models, theories and data have been proposed. Those familiar with the material have looked into it and reached the conclusion that based on our understanding today and a fair pile of assumptions, various predictions can be made with varying degrees of certainty as to what will happen to our climate in the coming years. The large majority see the data pointing in one direction to some extent or other.

    But now, you're telling us that they're all wrong or this is some kind of scheme to obtain funding?! Does that really sound plausible to you, looking at it with a pragmatic and practical engineering brain? Because it sure doesn't sound like it to me.
    Last edited by jturner; 30-06-2023 at 09:37 AM.
    The views expressed are my own, worth what you've paid for them, are not on behalf of anyone else and not those of any company I worked for etc.

  7. #207
    Cheeky Monkey... Paul Evans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Three Bridges
    Posts
    3,678
    Likes (Given)
    5670
    Likes (Received)
    1666
    Quote Originally Posted by notdeadyet View Post
    I'm not really sure what you mean by this. If you mean anatomically modern humans, we evolved about 59.7 million years after the impact. But everything that is alive today has a lineage that goes back to pre- this impact event. Your ancestor was one of those furry lemurs in the article. It had ancestors that were something else. They may not be anatomically the same animals but the lineage goes back. Humans didn't just appear one day in isolation, there was no Adam and Eve with no ancestors. Everything came from something else.

    The first human was homo habilis, about 2.5m years ago. But homo habilis didn't just appear, they had australopithecus ancestors who also had ancestors that were something else all the way back, changing species and changing genus as they went. Homo sapiens, us, only appeared maybe 300k years ago. One thing is for sure, there were no humans co-existing with dinosaurs.
    You're talking to one on the internet now FFS....😃

    Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
    And in the name of religion, For the hate in our soul
    For the blind and the sick in the heart, War has taken its toll
    If only you could feel the tears and pain, In the eyes of the world.
    Glover/Blackmore "The Eyes of the World"

  8. #208
    Tofu eating wokerato Chrisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Poole
    Posts
    10,468
    Likes (Given)
    1127
    Likes (Received)
    4680
    Quote Originally Posted by jturner View Post
    ...
    But now, you're telling us that they're all wrong or this is some kind of scheme to obtain funding?....
    There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and Tory corruption and I am not sure about the universe.
    With apologies to Albert Einstein.

  9. #209
    Nicotine, valium, vicodin... notdeadyet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Room 531
    Posts
    8,926
    Likes (Given)
    2319
    Likes (Received)
    7180
    Quote Originally Posted by jturner View Post
    Your engineering experience is probably no more relevant to the science of global climate change than mine is to neuroscience.
    Reading academic papers is a skill in itself aside from technical knowledge about the subject the paper discusses. I have an engineering degree and it wasn't until I did a postgrad that I really understood how to do it. The really dangerous part is when you read reviews of academic papers written by people who don't know how to read them i.e. mainstream journalism in general. Even legit science journalists make some cringeworthy mistakes. If nothing else, you need a very good understanding of statistics and that's usually where misinterpretation of what a paper says happens.

    But I agree about the general point. Climate change denier Randall Carlson is an engineer. Being an engineer doesn't stop you from being very wrong in science.

    But now, you're telling us that they're all wrong or this is some kind of scheme to obtain funding?! Does that really sound plausible to you, looking at it with a pragmatic and practical engineering brain? Because it sure doesn't sound like either to me.
    A basic principle of the scientific method is parsimony: what's the simplest, most conservative explanation?

    One of my interests is archaeology and this same conspiracy theory comes up time and again. Archaeologists and historians are hiding the truth and inventing theories to protect their university positions, gain funding and, best of all, not have to rewrite textbooks (ignoring that textbooks are rewritten regularly whenever new research comes to light). It's allowed utter arseholes like Graham Hancock to become extremely wealthy pushing this fantasy.

    Same thing happens in climate science (and plenty of other sciences). Where is the logic? If there was solid, inarguable science that showed climate change is not an issue then this would be a fantastic discovery because modern civilisation can continue unaltered. What scientist wouldn't want to be the one who discovers the world is going to be OK? Or if scientists are just crooks driven by funding and personal gain, why sell yourself to a lobby that has no money? The petrochem industry has deeper pockets than anyone. If I was going to sell out, I'd be selling out to them. Where's the money because that's likely to be where the corruption is.

    If you use the principle of parsimony, the simplest, most conservative explanation is that all these supposedly doom-saying, untrustworthy scientists are more than likely telling the truth.
    Last edited by notdeadyet; 30-06-2023 at 10:16 AM.
    Caliph Hamish Aw-Michty Ay-Ya-Bastard, Spiritual leader of Scottish State in England

  10. #210
    Tofu eating wokerato Chrisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Poole
    Posts
    10,468
    Likes (Given)
    1127
    Likes (Received)
    4680
    Quote Originally Posted by notdeadyet View Post
    ....
    If you use the principle of parsimony, the simplest, most conservative explanation is that all these supposedly doom-saying, untrustworthy scientists are more than likely telling the truth.
    How very inconvenient if you want to fly the kids to Lapland to see father Christmas.
    There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and Tory corruption and I am not sure about the universe.
    With apologies to Albert Einstein.


 
Page 21 of 53 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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