Where's an Environmentalist when you need one

[Speaker to Animals]

You are going to get SF fired again.

[C-Mag]

You are going to get SF fired again.

I APPRECIATE her talents as an actress

[Hastur]

I heard this clip on No Agenda.



It's from this program:
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/01/30 ... t-20-years

This is from the Freakonomics podcast. Kate Marvel climate scientist at Columbia University and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.



They don't really know what's going on and the models are still not working. Colour me surprised.

[Speaker to Animals]

Look at what global warming did now!

[C-Mag]

is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming actually a scientific theory ?

A fundamental principle of science is that a theory, to have any significance, must be falsifiable. Science proceeds by proposing a hypothesis, and figuring out what the hypothesis implies. Scientists then make real-world observations to determine whether the theory’s implications do, in fact, obtain. They look for implications that are specific to the theory, so that, for example, it doesn’t work to say: If this theory is valid, the sky will be blue. Voila! Any theory can be consistent with countless facts, but if it implies a prediction that is falsified by observation, the theory is wrong. Period.

Also: a model is not evidence. A model is a theory. Whether the model is correct or not depends on its consistency with observation.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/ ... ntific.php

[C-Mag]

Praising Hollywood for saving the environment

Did you know that actress Shailene Woodley gets 97 percent of her clothes from thrift stores and “gathers her water from fresh springs when she gets the opportunity”? Wow! Emma Watson and Olivia Wilde have both launched eco-friendly clothing lines “rooted in sustainable fashion.” Natalie Portman “believes that all of her activism is related, from veganism to feminism,” and narrated a documentary about the meat industry.
We could go on and on, but if every single American citizen would just start their own sustainable fashion line, the earth would be saved.
Oh, and Leonardo DiCaprio?
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/04 ... earth-day/

Idiots

[Ex-California]

is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming actually a scientific theory ?

A fundamental principle of science is that a theory, to have any significance, must be falsifiable. Science proceeds by proposing a hypothesis, and figuring out what the hypothesis implies. Scientists then make real-world observations to determine whether the theory’s implications do, in fact, obtain. They look for implications that are specific to the theory, so that, for example, it doesn’t work to say: If this theory is valid, the sky will be blue. Voila! Any theory can be consistent with countless facts, but if it implies a prediction that is falsified by observation, the theory is wrong. Period.

Also: a model is not evidence. A model is a theory. Whether the model is correct or not depends on its consistency with observation.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/ ... ntific.php

Even publications like National Geographic that have otherwise gone full retard are admitting that global warming could end up being a net positive for humanity

[C-Mag]

Glacier National Park quietly removed a visitor center sign saying its iconic glaciers will disappear by 2020 due to climate change
higher-than-average snowfall in recent years upended computer model projections from the early 2000s that NPS based its claim glaciers “will all be gone by the year 2020,” federal officials said.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/07/nati ... -warnings/


Best available science huh?

[Hastur]

is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming actually a scientific theory ?

A fundamental principle of science is that a theory, to have any significance, must be falsifiable. Science proceeds by proposing a hypothesis, and figuring out what the hypothesis implies. Scientists then make real-world observations to determine whether the theory’s implications do, in fact, obtain. They look for implications that are specific to the theory, so that, for example, it doesn’t work to say: If this theory is valid, the sky will be blue. Voila! Any theory can be consistent with countless facts, but if it implies a prediction that is falsified by observation, the theory is wrong. Period.

Also: a model is not evidence. A model is a theory. Whether the model is correct or not depends on its consistency with observation.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/ ... ntific.php

Even publications like National Geographic that have otherwise gone full retard are admitting that global warming could end up being a net positive for humanity

They are putting their faith into an incomplete flawed image of the real world. In a metaphysical sense, they are practicing Idolatry.

[C-Mag]

They are putting their faith into an incomplete flawed image of the real world. In a metaphysical sense, they are practicing Idolatry.

All they had to do is follow good scientific principals. But they don't. Skipping those steps and jumping to the conclusion make folks wonder if it's just about locking up power and money.