Time to drop a brick of epistemology on a table full of vibes. - Climate change

[Hafar1014]

The irony here, of course, is that advanced computer models are huge hogs of energy, and thus produce more CO2 than most folks produce.

That you are sitting here recommending the production of CO2 to run machines that are trying to get you to believe the global rules actually care about CO2?

That's just hilarious.

We need more CO2 we are at the lowest levels and that threatens green plants

 

[Anomalism]

It is driven by funding and politicks. Look how much power it dragged int the government. It created an industry when there was no demand so they had to mandate its use. What we got was energy thats unreliable very expensive and cant meet the future or current demand. Low cost reliable energy is the foundation of a good economy. Wind and solar cant meet that demand the cpst is too high and will create an energy shortage catastrophe. Bill Gates and Zuckerberb have invested in nuclear power
The science is weak. You have to ask yourself why youre so invested in an idea that has no foundation in fact or even truth. Its a belief a religion. Does your life have no meaning other then this fraud. When people have lives without meaning they will believe anything. What does your life mean?

Funding and politics do influence which research gets prioritized or how it’s publicized, but they do not change physical reality.

Energy policy and market failures are implementation issues, not evidence that climate science is “weak.” Wind and solar intermittency or costs are engineering and economic challenges, not refutations of greenhouse physics. Nuclear, hydro, and other low-carbon technologies also exist to address these gaps. Science is iterative: models are constantly revised as new data comes in, and error bars are updated; that is how hypotheses are tested and falsified.

Finally, conflating personal meaning with the validity of observed physical phenomena is a logical leap. Whether someone finds climate research compelling says nothing. Just as believing in gravity does not require a life philosophy. The data exists, measurable and repeatable, independent of anyone’s beliefs, politics, or wealth.

Also, you're still going in circles. Is this intentional, or do you not notice?

 

[Anomalism]

The irony here, of course, is that advanced computer models are huge hogs of energy, and thus produce more CO2 than most folks produce.

That you are sitting here recommending the production of CO2 to run machines that are trying to get you to believe the global rules actually care about CO2?

That's just hilarious.

Running models consumes energy, but that’s trivial compared to the energy and emissions they’re helping to avoid. Modern climate models are run on supercomputers that are a tiny fraction of the total global energy system; even accounting for electricity use, the emissions from running them are negligible compared to fossil-fuel burning worldwide.

More importantly, climate models are tools for understanding the system, not "CO2 believers." The physics behind greenhouse gases is independent of whether a computer runs or not. Models help us test predictions, compare scenarios, and refine understanding.

 

[Oddball]

The irony here, of course, is that advanced computer models are huge hogs of energy, and thus produce more CO2 than most folks produce.

That you are sitting here recommending the production of CO2 to run machines that are trying to get you to believe the global rules actually care about CO2?

That's just hilarious.

The other irony is the dude who piously claims to "drop a brick of epistemology" in the OP, using reasoning that is a complete affront to epistemics.

 

[Hafar1014]

Funding and politics do influence which research gets prioritized or how it’s publicized, but they do not change physical reality.

Energy policy and market failures are implementation issues, not evidence that climate science is “weak.” Wind and solar intermittency or costs are engineering and economic challenges, not refutations of greenhouse physics. Nuclear, hydro, and other low-carbon technologies also exist to address these gaps. Science is iterative: models are constantly revised as new data comes in, and error bars are updated; that is how hypotheses are tested and falsified.

Finally, conflating personal meaning with the validity of observed physical phenomena is a logical leap. Whether someone finds climate research compelling says nothing. Just as believing in gravity does not require a life philosophy. The data exists, measurable and repeatable, independent of anyone’s beliefs, politics, or wealth.

Also, you're still going in circles. Is this intentional, or do you not notice?

You do know the sun doesnt shine at night solar can nevre be major energy supply. The same goes fir wind which is even more expensive and destructive
We already have nuclear and fossil fuel technology.

Every belief has an emotional truth. Your belief serves an emotional need. Thats how every human mind works. We are not logical we are emotional first and emptions rule the mind. Emotions can determine what you think is true.
You have a belief not supported by science. Its supported by a need you have.

 

[Anomalism]

Indeed, if the entire climate narrative were true, why do the folks in charge appear to not care about their own CO2 production?

I remember quite a while ago the investigation the confirmed for me that reality of this hoax. One of the independent journalists who represented native American interests of Canada attended one of the very first UN COP conferences. What she learned made her realize the entire thing was about controlling the planets resources.

The problem here? Crypo currencies don't use a fraction of the energy that cloud computing and date meta processing for the fourth industrial revolution use. All these global oligarchs crow about what they can do with meta-data, smart devices, smart cities, etc. and all the manipulation of our data, but it takes HUGE amounts of data, more than crypto currencies, MORE than even entire nations.

If these oligarchs were really serious about climate change, then the major tech companies would stop using ads to track our every move, where we go, what we look at, and making profiles of everyone, and every thing, and all the world's intelligence agencies would stop doing the same. They are creating entire virtual worlds. These take way more energy, and produce way more CO2 than ICE Vehicles, but switching the population over to EVs that use these data centers to create self driving vehicle produce far more CO2. It is obvious this is all about control, and making money for investors.


Any person that will sit and lecture the public about resource over use, and energy over use? If they haven't ditched their smart phones or EVs, they aren't really that serious.

But I agree with Corey Morningstar on this issue.


By agreeing to have a smart phone? You are agreeing to be part of the problem. Smart devices and their attendant technologies, are a bigger contributor to energy use than crypos, and so called, "green house gases," than even internal combustion engines.

Though crypo currencies and CBDCs are a big part of the problem, but the establishment has no problem with these???

Now, naturally the global ruling elites don't want anyone to know this, because this tech is used to track, trace, and profile every bit of information about the populations they want to control. And really, that is what the AGW narrative is really about, global elites control of everything.

So if you don't need it? It would be like buying a car, or wrapping your house in plastic if you don't need to.

Of course, if you had unlimited amount of money, sure it would be nice to have multiple types of cars, a private jet, several houses, and maybe a couple yachts. But is that socially responsible, if you don't need it?

The Great Reset: The Final Assault on the Living Planet [It’s Not a Social Dilemma – It’s the Calculated Destruction of the Social, Part III]​

Wrong Kind of Green Nov 28, 2020 Foundations, Non-Profit Industrial Complex, Social Engineering, United Nations, Whiteness & Aversive Racism
November 28, 2020


By Cory Morningstar

Part three. This is the final segment of a three-part investigative series. [Part 1] [Part 2]

The Great Reset: The Final Assault on the Living Planet [It’s Not a Social Dilemma – It’s the Calculated Destruction of the Social, Part III] - Wrong Kind of Green

"Social license is being harvested to reset the capitalist system – under the guise of a climate emergency and saving the planet. This we know: the planet will not be saved by those that have destroyed it."

www.wrongkindofgreen.org

She recommends not having a smart device if you don't need one.

You Should Question Climate Change! Here’s Why. w/Dr. Drew​

Energy use by tech companies, data centers, or cloud computing does contribute to CO2 emissions, but that does not invalidate the underlying physics of greenhouse gases.

The fact that some high-tech systems are energy-intensive is a separate issue from whether human-driven emissions cause warming.

Comparing cryptocurrency or cloud computing to ICE vehicles conflates relative energy use with causation of climate change. While certain technologies are inefficient and could be optimized, global climate science relies on long-term measurements, not on the behavior of tech executives or their corporate choices. Models are designed to account for energy use patterns at scale, not individual moral decisions.

Finally, framing climate action as a moral failing by elites is an ad hominem distraction. The validity of AGW is determined by measurable phenomena, reproducible experiments, and physics-based models. Personal choices of wealthy individuals or corporate policies may affect emissions marginally, but they do not negate the physical reality of the situation.

 

[Hafar1014]

Energy use by tech companies, data centers, or cloud computing does contribute to CO2 emissions, but that does not invalidate the underlying physics of greenhouse gases.

The fact that some high-tech systems are energy-intensive is a separate issue from whether human-driven emissions cause warming.

Comparing cryptocurrency or cloud computing to ICE vehicles conflates relative energy use with causation of climate change. While certain technologies are inefficient and could be optimized, global climate science relies on long-term measurements, not on the behavior of tech executives or their corporate choices. Models are designed to account for energy use patterns at scale, not individual moral decisions.

Finally, framing climate action as a moral failing by elites is an ad hominem distraction. The validity of AGW is determined by measurable phenomena, reproducible experiments, and physics-based models. Personal choices of wealthy individuals or corporate policies may affect emissions marginally, but they do not negate the physical reality of the situation.

False measurements, manipulated research, and corrupt governments using fools to believe it. No one really cares anymore.

 

[Anomalism]

a complete affront to epistemics.

Clarify?

 

[Oddball]

Clarity?

There is no clarity in platitudes, fallacies of logic, poor understanding of semantics, and complete lack of understanding of what you're trying to blabber about.

You're the epitome of Dunning-Kruger.

 

[Anomalism]

You do know the sun doesnt shine at night solar can nevre be major energy supply. The same goes fir wind which is even more expensive and destructive
We already have nuclear and fossil fuel technology.

Every belief has an emotional truth. Your belief serves an emotional need. Thats how every human mind works. We are not logical we are emotional first and emptions rule the mind. Emotions can determine what you think is true.
You have a belief not supported by science. Its supported by a need you have.

This discussion has been about climate science and empirical evidence, not energy policy or personal preference. Arguing that my position is “emotional” doesn’t change the physical reality observed across decades of data.

For clarity, I’ve already expressed support for nuclear power as a reliable, low carbon energy source. I am not advocating for inefficient or intermittent technologies. The conversation here is about climate change, not debating which energy sources are politically convenient or emotionally satisfying.

 

[Anomalism]

There is no clarity in platitudes, fallacies of logic, poor understanding of semantics, and complete lack of understanding of what you're trying to blabber about.

You're the epitome of Dunning-Kruger.

It seems like you’re trying to score points rather than engage with the content. Insulting my intelligence is classic defensive intellectual posturing. When someone feels threatened or out of their depth, it’s easier to attack the person than their argument. The aggression and lack of specifics suggest discomfort with being confronted by a perspective you can’t immediately dismiss with data.

Broad insults don’t clarify anything; they signal frustration and a need to assert superiority rather than advance understanding. If you want to actually contribute to the discussion, I’m happy to address precise points, but vague attacks like this only reveal more about your defensive posture than about the topic itself.

 

[Hafar1014]

It seems like you’re trying to score points rather than engage with the content. Insulting my intelligence is classic defensive intellectual posturing. When someone feels threatened or out of their depth, it’s easier to attack the person than grapple with their argument. The aggression and lack of specifics suggest discomfort with being confronted by a perspective they can’t immediately categorize or dismiss with data.

If your goal is a serious critique, the appropriate way to engage is with specifics. Broad insults don’t clarify anything; they signal frustration and a need to assert superiority rather than advance understanding. If you want to actually contribute to the discussion, I’m happy to address precise points, but vague attacks like this only reveal more about your defensive posture than about the topic itself.

You just did the same thing to him

 

[Anomalism]

You just did the same thing to him

Oh? When did I insult his, or anybody's intelligence?

Analyzing someone’s behavior or rhetorical tactics is not the same as insulting intelligence. Conflating the two is a mischaracterization.

 

[Oddball]

It’s clear that you’re trying to score status points rather than engage with the content. Calling me a “Dunning-Kruger” and vaguely insulting my logic and semantics is classic defensive intellectual posturing. When someone feels threatened or out of their depth, it’s easier to attack the person than grapple with their argument. The aggression and lack of specifics suggest discomfort with being confronted by a perspective they can’t immediately categorize or dismiss with data.

The content is unprovable, unquantifiable, unfalsifiable, GIGO...Get that through your thick unprepossessing head.

If your goal is a serious critique, the appropriate way to engage is with specifics. Broad insults don’t clarify anything; they signal frustration and a need to assert superiority rather than advance understanding. If you want to actually contribute to the discussion, I’m happy to address precise points, but vague attacks like this only reveal more about your defensive posture than about the topic itself.

You've been given a serious critique...You have no science...You have appeals to authority...Every one of your banal boilerplate arguments branches off of that same stale and fallacious premise.

To restate the obvious: you have absolutely NFI what you're blabbering about.

 

[Anomalism]

The content is unprovable, unquantifiable, unfalsifiable, GIGO...Get that through your thick unprepossessing head.

You've been given a serious critique...You have no science...You have appeals to authority...Every one of your banal boilerplate arguments branches off of that same stale and fallacious premise.

To restate the obvious: you have absolutely NFI what you're blabbering about.

It’s interesting that you feel compelled to repeatedly engage with my points while simultaneously claiming they’re meaningless or stale. That tension is revealing: if something were truly irrelevant or stupid, it wouldn’t elicit this much energy or emotional investment. If I'm stupid and not making any sense, why are you still here?

Labeling my arguments as GIGO, appeals to authority, or “boilerplate” reads less like critique and more like a venting of frustration at being challenged. The intensity and repetition of your responses suggest that my points are hitting a spot that’s uncomfortable for you, not that they are empty.

If the goal is productive discussion, addressing specific claims or data would be far more effective than generalized personal attacks. Otherwise, the repeated insistence that my arguments are meaningless only underscores how seriously you’re taking them, despite your assertions to the contrary.

 

[Hafar1014]

Oh? When did I insult his, or anybody's intelligence?

Analyzing someone’s behavior or rhetorical tactics is not the same as insulting intelligence. Conflating the two is a mischaracterization.

You did the same thing as a pseudoinelectual.

 

[Anomalism]

You did the same thing as a pseudoinelectual.

Interesting choice of spelling. ‘Pseudoinelectual’ has a certain… flair. Regardless, analyzing rhetorical patterns is not the same as insulting intelligence

 

[Oddball]

It’s interesting that you feel compelled to repeatedly engage with my points while simultaneously claiming they’re meaningless or stale. That tension is revealing: if something were truly irrelevant or stupid, it wouldn’t elicit this much energy or emotional investment. If I'm stupid and not making any sense, why are you still here?

Labeling my arguments as GIGO, appeals to authority, or “boilerplate” reads less like critique and more like a venting of frustration at being challenged. The intensity and repetition of your responses suggest that my points are hitting a spot that’s uncomfortable for you, not that they are empty.

If the goal is productive discussion, addressing specific claims or data would be far more effective than generalized personal attacks. Otherwise, the repeated insistence that my arguments are meaningless only underscores how seriously you’re taking them, despite your assertions to the contrary.

There is no productive discussion with someone who rejects sound logical reasoning, as you have done since your dreary bloviating OP.

The content is entirely irrelevant when you've stuffed it into a thematic structure that can't bear up under the weight of said sound reasoning.

You've broken no ground here that hasn't already been beaten to death, yet act as though you're some ******* brilliant savant for bringing it all up....There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to take it seriously.

 

[Anomalism]

There is no productive discussion with someone who rejects sound logical reasoning, as you have done since your dreary bloviating OP.

The content is entirely irrelevant when you've stuffed it into a thematic structure that can't bear up under the weight of said sound reasoning.

You've broken no ground here that hasn't already been beaten to death, yet act as though you're some ******* brilliant savant for bringing it all up....There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to take it seriously.

I didn't act like I'm anything. Lol Never said or implied it. You're revealing a lot right now.

This is an Internet forum. Don't take it seriously. It doesn't matter. The question remains though...

Why have you put so much energy into disagreeing with somebody you think is a fool?

 

[MisterBeale]

Finally, framing climate action as a moral failing by elites is an ad hominem distraction. The validity of AGW is determined by measurable phenomena, reproducible experiments, and physics-based models. Personal choices of wealthy individuals or corporate policies may affect emissions marginally, but they do not negate the physical reality of the situation.

It is only an ad hom if you are too dense, or don't understand the connection between who is funding the researchers, and who is pushing the so called-need to do something about this manufactured problem

This is akin to a heroine addict being part of an intervention for his alcoholic friend.

Actions speak louder than propaganda.