Conversation

Notices

1. d (deprecated_ii@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Feb-2023 23:14:06 JST d

   in reply to

   • 🎅 🎄 Festive Dave 🎄 🎅
   • スカイラー🎄🇷🇺 :z:
   @dave @skylar You missed the point of my Nobel comment entirely, as expected. I will explain it to you: the Nobel committee is a political body that gives out awards to support their pet causes, and awards do not indicate authority or truth. So it doesn't matter what some dipshit won an award for, because the awards are meaningless except as indicators of what the system is pushing.
   
   The "physical modeling simulation of the earth" is also total fucking junk. The system is just too big. Have you ever actually investigated *how* climate systems are modeled? I have. The resolution is hilariously poor out of necessity, because you would need the entire earth's computing resources to model it well.
   
   And of course, anyone with a smidgen of common sense should realize that even a perfect model is only as good as its data. I will remind you again that the earth is an enormous system, which is very difficult to measure. What do those facts imply, Dave?
   • Kenny Blankenship likes this.
   • d (deprecated_ii@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Feb-2023 23:14:07 JST d

     in reply to

     • 🎅 🎄 Festive Dave 🎄 🎅
     • スカイラー🎄🇷🇺 :z:
     @dave @skylar I was astonished when I dug into "climate science" years back and saw how terrible the methodology is. it's the junkiest of junk science, and these stupid niggers are claiming they can detect minuscule temperature changes and accurately predict trends a century out
     
     it's an absolute farce
   • 🎅 🎄 Festive Dave 🎄 🎅 (dave@gleasonator.com)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Feb-2023 23:14:07 JST 🎅 🎄 Festive Dave 🎄 🎅

     in reply to

     • スカイラー🎄🇷🇺 :z:

     @deprecated_ii @skylar I am astonished that after feeling the need to dodge such a simple question as “What did Syukuro Manabe win a Nobel Prize for?”, you are coming back the very next day and unironically declaring how your “deep investigations” uncovered the truth of this “junk science”, which you clearly do actually understand at a deep level, as evidenced by…your inability to grapple with simple questions concerning this junk science which you have supposedly investigated so deeply.

   • 🎅 🎄 Festive Dave 🎄 🎅 (dave@gleasonator.com)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Feb-2023 23:14:08 JST 🎅 🎄 Festive Dave 🎄 🎅

     in reply to

     • スカイラー🎄🇷🇺 :z:

     @skylar Ok, there’s nothing that can convince you to “be afraid of the weather”.

     How about convincing you of the more modest assertion that human greenhouse gas emissions are the primary reason for the observed rise in greenhouse gas concentrations, and that this rise in GHG concentrations is the primary driver for the observed rise in global temperatures?

   • d (deprecated_ii@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Feb-2023 23:14:08 JST d

     in reply to

     • 🎅 🎄 Festive Dave 🎄 🎅
     • スカイラー🎄🇷🇺 :z:
     @dave @skylar "observed rise in global temperatures"
     
     first of all, the data is so fuzzy any honest assessment can't claim there *has* been an observed rise in temperatures. this is something any sophomore taking physics for STEM majors should be able to figure out using basic error analysis
     
     second, we know the climate is cooler now than it was during the medieval warm period, so even if there *was* an observed temperature rise, the much more logical conclusion is we're coming out of a cold period
     
     but don't worry, I don't expect you to be honest about any of this. after all, you claim to want people to "learn the science" but when an honest to goodness geologist -- me -- disagrees with you, suddenly knowledge doesn't count anymore
   • スカイラー🎄🇷🇺 :z: (skylar@misskey.yandere.love)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Feb-2023 23:14:09 JST スカイラー🎄🇷🇺 :z:

     in reply to

     • 🎅 🎄 Festive Dave 🎄 🎅
     @dave so true
     there's nothing you can say that'd make me start being afraid of the weather or carbon dioxide
     
     as for the holocaust, it's real but happens in the future, and we ain't stopping at 6 million
   • 🎅 🎄 Festive Dave 🎄 🎅 (dave@gleasonator.com)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Feb-2023 23:14:10 JST 🎅 🎄 Festive Dave 🎄 🎅

     Sometimes I think I should put more effort into being patient with climate skeptics and holocaust “skeptics”, but the problem is that, in my experience, it’s going to be a waste of your time 95% of the time.

     With climate skeptics, trying to do direct refutation just results in a pivot to some new claim or stat once they realize they can no longer defend the previous one. And if you try to instead approach it in a roundabout way, by asking straightforward questions, that have answers you can readily find with a google search, but that where acknowledging what the correct answer is an acknowledgement that their claim was wrong, they just don’t answer the question.

     With Holocaust “skeptics”, it’s even harder because they reject the answers to any empirical questions when the answers to those questions tell them something that they don’t like, but the climate skeptics are still frustrating because they also implicitly do this.

     For example, earlier today I had a guy try to tell me that it would take more lithium than exists on planet earth to convert our ICE car infrastructure to EVs. When asked a simple question about what percentage of an EV battery pack is comprised of lithium, instead of getting the straightforward answer - that would have acknowledged how little lithium is actually required to build these batteries and also acknowledged that the claim that we didn’t have enough lithium was false - I instead got a pivot to volcanoes or something.

     The response to having the foundations of their assertions questioned must not be inquiry.