[Misc] The Big Bang (or not).

[Hugo Rune]

Bloody scientists and experts. We’ve had enough em!

I’ll always put my trust in conspiracy theories!






Not really.


Primordial black holes offer an interesting hypothesis to where that missing matter (that we can’t see) is.

Edit: And that article is absolute bollox.

 

[The Clamp]

So why is the OP so desperate for the science of climate change to be wrong? I get that it’s frightening but hoping it’s not there and just goes away is a really terrible idea.

Nail on head. Conspiracy theories are based on fear and insecurity. Fear that bad things are happening but too afraid to deal in facts and probability.

I didn’t want to generalise but many people who believe in this sort of bobbins don’t usually have much of an understanding of what they have read or watched. Hence ending an “explanation” with “etc etc”. It doesn’t convince me that they know what they are talking about.

They will usually wriggle out of giving a coherent explanation by saying “You need to question mainstream beliefs, do your own research” and other such phrases to avoid having to give a decent account of their beliefs.

 

[Swansman]

So why is the OP so desperate for the science of climate change to be wrong? I get that it’s frightening but hoping it’s not there and just goes away is a really terrible idea.

Questioning things that the mainstream human sees as absolute truths does not indicate fear.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Also, have you heard the the barrier reef is at 40 year highs with coral cover (wonder why that wasn't covered by the BBC - goes against the narrative).

If you're going to spin a CT, could I suggest you do yourself a favour and not spout facts that take all of 5 seconds to disprove?

"Coral has recovered from storms and bleaching events to record levels across much of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, a survey has found." First sentence in this article from 4 Aug 2022: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-62402891

Citing things as fact when they are patently not facts diminishes the credibility of everything else you write.

 

[Baldseagull]

Here's a link to a report where 1200 scientists have gone on record as saying they don't agree with the prevailing narrative.

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18...ionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

If you say "Daily Sceptic hahaha" or something, then where else would you expect to see scientists try to publish when the MSM is so blinkered in its views?

People like Patrick Moore (one of the co founders of GreenPeace and a life long environmentalist) is another example of someone who is sceptical. However, so many get their reputations trashed/lose their jobs for speaking out. If you believe that an increase of CO2 from roughly 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000 is going to cause the planet to be uninhabitable then that's your choice. Yep, Co2 has increase by 1/2500 in the atmosphere over 150 years. Wow. It's 0.04% by volume.

The problem is so many people just believe what they hear on the MSM and NEVER question.

The questioning of the Big Bang just goes to show that accepted science is not always right and being challenged should not result in insults but debate should be encouraged. That's how things progress, however in todays world, so many who know so little can shout so much,

But I thought you didn't trust scientists?

 

[AstroSloth]

Considering it was based on the claims that it was global warming causing the death of the reef, what do you suggest has been done to mitigate that FFS?

Yep, nothing. Jeez.

The reef growth is at a 40 year high. It's still far lower than before. It's also a type of coral that is very susceptible to bleaching and thus likely won't last. The current growth is down to our intervention to minimise the effect global warming has on the reef.


OP you know a tiny amount about a lot of subjects and perceive yourself to be an expert, latching onto anything that reaffirms your preconceived ideas.

Might I recommend the Dunning-Kruger scale



You're currently at the peak of Mount Stupid.

 

[pb21]

Here's a link to a report where 1200 scientists have gone on record as saying they don't agree with the prevailing narrative.

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18...ionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

If you say "Daily Sceptic hahaha" or something, then where else would you expect to see scientists try to publish when the MSM is so blinkered in its views?

People like Patrick Moore (one of the co founders of GreenPeace and a life long environmentalist) is another example of someone who is sceptical. However, so many get their reputations trashed/lose their jobs for speaking out. If you believe that an increase of CO2 from roughly 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000 is going to cause the planet to be uninhabitable then that's your choice. Yep, Co2 has increase by 1/2500 in the atmosphere over 150 years. Wow. It's 0.04% by volume.

The problem is so many people just believe what they hear on the MSM and NEVER question.

The questioning of the Big Bang just goes to show that accepted science is not always right and being challenged should not result in insults but debate should be encouraged. That's how things progress, however in todays world, so many who know so little can shout so much,

With respect though, you haven't answered my questions of:

Why did the climate change myth start?
Why does it continue/prevail?
Why are we ignoring the he data and scientists, like those in the article you linked to, who are telling us that there is no issue?

As I said, if there is no issue it would be bloody brilliant, life could continue as normal, oil and gas companies could continue to make massive profits without having to invest in risky projects. Everyone would win. Why are we ignoring this fact?

Looking at your link, specifically the end, contains some potential answers though, or at least pointers. This says:

Of course, green extremists in academia, politics and journalism will continue to argue for the command-and-control they crave through a Net Zero policy. In the end, their warped view of the scientific process will fade, leaving a trail of ludicrous Armageddon forecasts, and yet more failed experiments in hard-left economic and societal control.

That's quite a telling couple of sentences actually.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Jeez, some people are so dumb it's painful. I bet you know nothing about the science behind the climate scare.

What about ENSO?
AMO?
PDO?
There are 5 climate temperature datasets and they don't agree. 3 are LOTI and 2 are satellite.
More energy is stored in the oceans than in the atmosphere.
What about cloud cover (hint - climate models don't model cloud cover very well)?
What about ocean cycles which run over decades?
Water vapour is much more of a greenhouse gas then CO2. Just think about how much hotter it is when it's humid. That's because the air retains more heat it there's more water vapour.
Etc, etc.

You really should let that unclassified in GCSE chemistry go. The whole of the scientific world isn't against you, it was probably just an off day

 

[Swansman]

Nail on head. Conspiracy theories are based on fear and insecurity. Fear that bad things are happening but too afraid to deal in facts and probability.

I didn’t want to generalise but many people who believe in this sort of bobbins don’t usually have much of an understanding of what they have read or watched. Hence ending an “explanation” with “etc etc”. It doesn’t convince me that they know what they are talking about.

Nah, putting yourself in a position where you know all the sheep will be calling you a nutjob, idiot, David Icke-believer etc. really doesn't indicate fear and insecurity, quite the opposite.

 

[Baldseagull]

Questioning things that the mainstream human sees as absolute truths does not indicate fear.

There is a scary thing happening to our planet that will cause disruption, and possible famine and wars over resources. Why are you so sure its not fear that makes him want to deny it?

 

[The Clamp]

Questioning things that the mainstream human sees as absolute truths does not indicate fear.

House!!

 

[AstroSloth]

But I thought you didn't trust scientists?

Not to mention the fact that it's simply 1200 scientists and "experts".

Not 1200 scientists who have devoted their entire life to climate science.

Fun fact the statistic that 97% of climate scientists agree that man made climate change is real has been revised since the original.

It's now 99.5% of climate scientists.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Questioning things that the mainstream human sees as absolute truths does not indicate fear.

To be fair, if he is constantly stoned, pissed and and lives off pizza too, it may be some kind of defence

 

[AstroSloth]

Nah, putting yourself in a position where you know all the sheep will be calling you a nutjob, idiot, David Icke-believer etc. really doesn't indicate fear and insecurity, quite the opposite.

Except it doesn't. They blindly believe what the counter argument say without any idea what it is they're actually agreeing with. With the added benefit that the counter argument is wrong but they haven't studied the field enough to realise it, so they blindly follow as sheep.

 

[Swansman]

There is a scary thing happening to our planet that will cause disruption, and possible famine and wars over resources. Why are you so sure its not fear that makes him want to deny it?

Arguably the thought that we're all going hand-in-hand into oblivion is less frightening than the idea that we're brainwashed into thinking this for reasons unknown.

 

[BBassic]

I'm just about smart enough to change the clock on my oven when the clocks go back / forwards so I'm quite happy believing the prevailing scientific theories on the Big Bang. And aliens. And all that. Stuff.

 

[Swansman]

Except it doesn't. They blindly believe what the counter argument say without any idea what it is they're actually agreeing with. With the added benefit that the counter argument is wrong but they haven't studied the field enough to realise it, so they blindly follow as sheep.

Maybe some do. Some blindly believe the argument, some blindly believe the counter-argument. Pretty sure the vast majority of "oh the climate is going to kill us all" made very little research and just heard the headlines and went with the majority belief as it is the most comfortable thing to do.

 

[AstroSloth]

I think the funding of climate research is clearly heavily weighted to supporting the 'consensus'. How many scientists wold get grants from universities, governments, IPCC if they said they wanted to prove that the majority of warming was natural/cyclical? Yep, you're right. Close the sweet FA, Actually, they'd probably lose their current research position.

Science should be about challenging the consensus view and encouraging debate. And no, I don't buy into the flat earthers etc. before any thicko suggests that.

No-one disputes the climate has warmed at the end of the 20th century.
No-one disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No-one disputes that man is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Many dispute that the warming is all caused by CO2 and that it is damaging. For example, more people die from cold than heat around the world, even in countries like India.
CO2 is plant food - the world has greened with more CO2.

Also, have you heard the the barrier reef is at 40 year highs with coral cover (wonder why that wasn't covered by the BBC - goes against the narrative). Remember all those fear stories about the death of the reef - another failed climate prediction. Like the arctic being ice-free in summer.

Because we understand the theories of natural climate cycles and also understand that the current cycle is being massively altered by human activity.

Climate scientists don't say that all climate change is caused by purely CO2, they say that CO2 is the driving force that leads to positive feedback loops of water vapour etc leading to further heat being trapped. Also there's CO2e gases such as methane.

Climate change isn't just about the average temperatures rising, we see far more common and more severe extreme weather events than we did previously.

Plants survive on CO2 yes, but the current plants are evolved for the temperatures they have had and CO2 levels they have had. Man made climate change accelerates changes faster than plants can evolve leading to crops not being able to be grown in certain areas due to extreme heat. The extreme heat will drive a migration crises and food shortages due to crops not being viable in traditional areas anymore.

 

[The Clamp]

Nah, putting yourself in a position where you know all the sheep will be calling you a nutjob, idiot, David Icke-believer etc. really doesn't indicate fear and insecurity, quite the opposite.

There are different types of sheep.

Living on takeaway pizza, smoking dope and “researching” videos on YouTube is hardly the Avant Garde, darling.

 

[AstroSloth]

Maybe some do. Some blindly believe the argument, some blindly believe the counter-argument. Pretty sure the vast majority of "oh the climate is going to kill us all" made very little research and just heard the headlines and went with the majority belief as it is the most comfortable thing to do.

But those headlines are actually driven by data and study by leading scientists who have dedicated their lives to the study, we are already seeing the effects that they predicted.

Meanwhile the counter argument is based on poor science that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, hence why it isn't accepted as a theory.