@LowQCab
Read your posts. Your comments are tinged with political and unscientific biases.

Quotes:
==============================================
The Best solution is to stop believing the "Climate-Change" Propaganda.
( It used to be "Global-Warming" but damn it,
back in the '70's it was cooling down,
and people started pointing that out,
so "We" had to change the name )

Has it ever occurred to You that You don't know who "We" is ??????

The problem is, how can "We" instill FEAR into People so that "We" can justify
raising TAXES and Licence-Fees.

he was in neck-deep in the "Climate-Change" research BS.
And that's just what it is, Political-Power-Grab BS.

What "Species" caused it to "get-warmer" the first ~3000 times that it "got-warmer" ???
Way before Man was here.

I wonder how they measured CO2 in Parts-Per-Million, a Million Years ago.
And where are the Oxygen-Charts ?
Or did somebody decide that the Oxygen levels don't matter ?
===========================================
End quotes

We have gone down this road before.
It is comments like these that will result in having this thread closed for political reasons.

 

If you focussed more on checking the available evidence and set aside this obsession with being controlled by 'them', perhaps you could come up with a more enlightened view of climate change.

My Dad was square in the middle of "the available evidence",
I had to listen regularly to his disgust at how the numbers were being manipulated,
or left out.

Just because it doesn't square with the information that You "believe"
doesn't mean that it didn't happen,
and it also doesn't mean that it is somehow "unscientific".

Galileo, was accused of heresy and imprisoned,
are You saying that he was "unscientific" ?

The phrase "well everybody knows that" is almost universally wrong,
and perpetuates vast quantities of mis-information.
.
.
.

 

It must be very scary to believe what you do.

Bob

 

It must be very scary to believe what you do.

Not scary at all, but it did worry me for around ~10-years,
that's why I spent so much time investigating, this,
and quite a few other subjects,
including, (but not limited to), all types of Law, Money,
how People work in general, Nutrition/Drugs/Health,
and 2 in particular .........
Why People will do anything in their power to
destroy things that they don't understand,
and,
Why many People's biggest fear is confronting the idea that
they may have been fooled, duped, coned, mis-lead, etc.,
and consequently,
may have spread false information to People they care about.
.
.
.

 

It must be very scary to believe what you do.

Bob

The Q is strong in that one.

 

Where in my my post does this comment appear.?

The phrase "well everybody knows that" is almost universally wrong,
and perpetuates vast quantities of mis-information.

If you are going to misquote me, do it right.

 

Why People will do anything in their power to
destroy things that they don't understand,
and,
Why many People's biggest fear is confronting the idea that
they may have been fooled, duped, coned, mis-lead, etc.,
and consequently,
may have spread false information to People they care about.
.
.

The irony is painful.

Bob

 

"" Where in my my post does this comment appear.?

The phrase "well everybody knows that" is almost universally wrong,
and perpetuates vast quantities of mis-information.

If you are going to misquote me, do it right. ""

I sorry that You got the impression that I was addressing You directly.
I was not.

My statement was not intended to be a response to any of your statements,
but only a very general example of an all-too-common phenomenon in Life.

I apologize for the mis-understanding.
.
.
.

 

"" The irony is painful. ""

Yes, I completely agree, it most definitely is painful.

What would happen if You found out that half of what You "know" was wrong ?

PREPOSTEROUS !!!!!

Think about it,
I'd be will to bet that few People here can even entertain the idea.

I don't like this idea, shoot the messenger, ....... immediately !!

Man oh Man, talk about ironic !!!

Most People don't actually care about being factually correct,
as long as "the majority" generally accepts it.
.
.
.

 

Just because most experts agree on something doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

Just because most experts agree on something doesn't mean it's wrong.

It also doesn't mean that it's correct.

One of the oldest advertising ploys in the history of Man is
"everybody agrees, this product is the best ever".

It's also used to sway Public Opinion.
.
.
.

 

@LowQCab

Read your posts. Your comments are tinged with political and unscientific biases.

@LowQCab raises a fair point though. Back in the 1970's scientists really were warning of an imminent "snowball earth".





What is certain is that CO2 levels have been steadily rising over the years. It should be said however, that that may not necessarily be a bane to humanity either. Because more carbon dioxide means MORE PLANT GROWTH. Which in turn leads to MORE OXYGEN for the environment. (Being the by-product of plant respiration.) So in that sense at least maybe we're just inadvertantly strengthening the Earth's biome?

 

It also doesn't mean that it's correct.

One of the oldest advertising ploys in the history of Man is
"everybody agrees, this product is the best ever".

It's also used to sway Public Opinion.
.
.
.

It seems that you are a contrarian on every important issue discussed. You seem to believe the mainstream position is always a fabrication and that experts are always compromised by some conspiracy to hide the truth.

I can't sympathize.

While I am sure there are cases where fraud is perpetrated by governments (e.g.: CIA activity in South America) and by corporations (e.g.: suppression of electric vehicles), I also believe that we face serious challenges because of human activity at unprecedented levels which includes epi- and pandemics caused by animal production and AGW caused by the burning of fossil fuels in unfathomable quantities, something that "nature" doesn't do.

Before I retired, I supported diverse research groups in the colleges of science and engineering at a university. I worked with them on various technological solutions for their experimentation. Among these were climatologists and meteorologists. At first, I was skeptical of AGW because I did see a race for funding which was made readily available in that area, and I have no doubt that some research was nothing more than a way to keep a research group going (not, thankfully, at my institution which had a culture of great care in that area).

I couldn't understand the explanations I was seeing about how AGW was supposed to work, or how the 100-year old temperature data could be validated, so I started asking around. I got good answers. It was still very hard to understand—it requires a great deal of actual study of the chemistry and math, and collaboration of experts in each area—but I came to see that it wasn't just made up nonsense, it's something real.

My Dunning-Kruger induced rejection became more of a vague understanding of the problem and an acknowledgment that I didn't have the time or tools to really grasp how the work was being done but I was convinced people knew what they were talking about and they told me things were very grave.

"I can't understand it" is not a reason to reject something, though it is often the case. "I studied it" isn't either, because this is a very complex, specialized area with constant innovation in methods and results. I was only able to be a skeptic because I was ignorant, not because I was informed.

Most objections people make to AGW are facile, uninformed, and often "not even wrong".

I find you very knowledgeable about practical circuits and admire the genuine effort you often put into answering people's questions. I have watched you help quite a few people here and it's admirable.

On these other things, I find myself very much at odds with your approach and almost universally with your conclusions, though not always with the facts you use to reach them, nor with some of the ideas they embody.

I hope you don't find this response disrespectful, it's not intended that way. I do believe you are out of your depth on some of these questions and that you are repeating or creating misinformation but I am not taking that as a moral judgment or dismissing you. I just disagree with you, very much.

 

I thought topics like unity gain and global warming / climate change were a taboo even in Off-Topic. Reading where this thread is going reminds me of why certain subjects are discouraged or simply put prohibited.

Ron

 

Exactly. There are two camps in the climate change/global warming debate. Discussions on the matter can easily become very heated and turbulent. That is why discussion is prohibited on AAC.

This is notice that this discussion will be closed.

 

The problem is not the consensus, or the evidence,
( besides that, my Scientists are smarter than any of your old dumb Scientists !!! ),
the problem is getting People to admit to themselves that they
could "possibly" have been made a fool of,
( duped, mis-lead, conned, lied-to, brain-washed, pick your favorite descriptive label),
this is incredibly difficult to over-come,
as is being demonstrated here in spades.

Me personally, I question EVERYTHING, ALWAYS no matter what the source may be.

And it has held me in good stead.

I tend to think in probabilities,
rather than being arrogant, and thinking that I actually "know" something.
I have proved repeatedly that what I have been taught, and/or, believed to be true,
was either incomplete, or sometimes completely bogus and detrimental.

Any truly wise and intelligent Person must eventually come to the conclusion
that there are vastly more things that they don't have a clue about,
than things that they "believe" that they "know" to be a fact.

We are living in the proverbial "Matrix" for real.

It is possible to step back from it and figure out how it works,
but it's not easy at all to get around all the mechanisms designed to suck You into it,
and it's even harder to get others to even consider the possibility,
let alone actually "LOOK" in a different direction than what they're used to.

You want proof ???
This Philosophical discussion,
(the fact that it started with "Climate-Change" is a moot point),
is being closed specifically for the reasons previously stated.
And the person that closed it doesn't understand half of what was being said.

Freedom of Speech is what made the USA into the premiere World Power-House,
and there were plenty of "heated discussions" that got us here,
and there are still certain people who want to stop any discussion that they don't "like".
A perfect example is the on-going "Cancel-Culture" crusade, etc.,
which is filled with people that have no clue and are down-right malicious.

I'm sorry that this discussion has been disrupted, it was just getting interesting.

.
.
.

 

First and foremost This site is all about electronics not about debate. It is owned so censorship as in defined by the government does not apply. Arguing with moderators is futile, and can only result in a ban. As moderators we are more interested in keeping it civil and experience has shown us global warming debates cannot stay civil.