sda @sda@qoto.org

@freemo It's wrong to kill only because of subjective belief. Obviously there's a vast sea of murderers, tactical policemen, politicians, soldiers, etc. who believe that killing to get or keep whatever it is they want to get or keep is justified, maybe even "right."
Personally, I share the belief that we all have an inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

IPCC Third Assessment Report: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” 

We Tried to Publish a Replication of a Science Paper in Science. The Journal Refused.

https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/science-replication-conservatives-liberals-reacting-to-threats.html

Climate scientists’ motivated reasoning

https://judithcurry.com/2019/06/19/climate-scientists-motivated-reasoning/

@bradfonseca

The author has such a limited view of reality. It's like someone with an 8th grade education expounding on the shortcomings PhD accreditation.

There are also hints of "it's not my fault that I'm unhappy. It's the fault of capitalism." Yes, a victim mentality is a really good way to reach your goal of unhappiness.

I'm familiar with mindfulness, but not with the "McMindfulness" he refers to. Maybe he's right about that aspect of it.

Once he went off on the neoliberalism tangent his misconceptions became more and more evident... as if somehow "losing it" is the only, or best, way of responding to injustice.

Overall, it seemed to be just another article that missed the mark by another author who had no more idea what he was writing about than what he read on wikipedia.

Industrial methane emissions are underreported, study finds

“In a 20-year timeframe, methane’s global warming potential is 84 times that of carbon dioxide.”

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2019/06/industrial-methane-emissions-are-underreported-study-finds

Research group finds way to turn plastic waste products into jet fuel

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-group-plastic-products-jet-fuel.html

@mikey Even at my age there's an occasional dream of not remembering where my locker is, or forgetting the combination. Second most recurring theme is being back in the Army with shoulder length hair and either being called out for it, or more often, wondering when they're going to call me out for it.

The mysterious crystal that melts at two different temperatures

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20190606a/full/

The Sun follows the rhythm of the planets

https://www.hzdr.de/db/Cms?pNid=99&pOid=58444

@freemo 🤣

Historical perspective:

Ice Age is Coming 1978 Science Facts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq6fDa9JrzQ

@freemo
> The sort of science it takes to
confirm human caused climate change is more at the high-school level.

Got it. You look at the past and say,
1) Greenland used to be green. Now it's ice. What caused the earth to be warmer before man-made CO2?
2) England used to have a thriving vineyard industry. Now it's too cold for grapes. How was the earth warmer before man-made CO2?

The medieval warm period would suggest that warmer is better. Mankind thrived.

>The point is if you're going to claim 99.9% of scientists are all wrong

Nobody has claimed that.

> Its settled science

Again with the dogmatism. No scientist would ever say that. No intelligent person even remotely connected to science would ever say that.

So, AR.

@freemo
> if your going to stand up and claim you have the superior science

I don't recall ever having claimed to have superior science. Does anyone actually "have" science? It's an odd phrasing.

Study A may not agree with Study B. Climate model A may omit 3 critical variables while model B may omit only 2. They're both science guessing at which things are important and which are not. My problem is not with the data, or the methodology. My problem is with the rabid and fervent dogmatism. The idea of "settled science" is the idea that science as an exploration of reality is no longer useful. My problem is starting with the conclusion and working the methodology backward to get the "correct" results.

@Surasanji @SquidPresident@cryptids.online
She came wandering through the backyard in the middle of winter. Skin and bones. She's now the fattest of our three rescues.

@freemo Science doesn't care about consensus. It cares about data and observation. Politics is the arena for consensus. Religion is the arena for dogma.

What do you think about the (admittedly dated) BBC video?

https://invidio.us/watch?v=pIRICfZOvpY

@Surasanji

a) You said "Okay, so prove to me that the majority of scientists say otherwise."

Irrelevant what a "majority" of scientists say. The science is not the the same as the number of scientists who say it. Einstein said something to the effect of "No number of experiments can prove me right, but a single one can prove me wrong."

"most climate scientists agree that climate change is happening"

Irrelevant what "most" scientists agree.

"You are the one asserting that 'propaganda' is making it nearly
impossible to unravel the facts.
SO.. Prove it."

I made no such assertion. I asked a question about unraveling science from propaganda.
Let's pretend for a moment though that I actually did make such an assertion. How would I prove something that I've already said would be nearly impossible to unravel?

Christy quit the IPCC in disgust because they altered his reports. Others' reports were also altered. That's sort of the definition of propaganda. The scientists submit their reports. The political body (IPCC) alters them for publication.

If I thought you'd watch it, even for a laugh, I'd point you to the BBC show that asks a lot of questions about global warming assumptions.

@freemo Multiple scientists have left the IPCC in disgust. If you read the reasons they left, you might find some skepticism of your own when it comes to the infallibility of the IPCC.