Science has been bought and paid for by those in ivory towers

The side bar in black kind of sums up my views. https://www.scribd.com/document/227510257/Motion-Through-the-Ether-Silvertooth-E-W

WDNL doesn't believe in empirical evidence it appears as demonstrated by his reactions when people point out errors in his reasoning. For example the link he provides you below is sometimes sold as coming from a scientific journal when it doesn't. Please see https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2018/04/06/the-tale-of-a-1986-experiment-that-proved-einstein-wrong/

It turns out it isn't an article. It's a one column letter to the editor by one E. W. Silvertooth claiming he did an experiment with details to follow. No evidence, no link, no peer review, just an unsubstantiated claim. Still, supporters of a fixed Earth model cite this article a great deal, refering to it as the Silvertooth experiment. What they don't tend to do is cite any actual experiment.

If Silvertooth was right, the wavelength variations should follow sidereal time, not solar time. Marett found there was so much noise in the data, the variation in wavelengths could be made to agree with either sidereal or solar time. Digging into things more closely, he saw a correlation between the observed wavelength shift and small fluctuations in the temperature of the room. The change in temperature was shifting the alignment of the experiment laser, causing the apparent shift Silvertooth saw. Marett also found that the calculated motion of the Earth only worked because Silvertooth assumed the data measured an actual wavelength shift. Silvertooth's results were real, but his conclusions were wrong.

Do you have an argument that's not fallacious?

It's science falsely so called. Once you realize how far false science goes to purposefully deceive such as "outer space" being a massive hoax you can see through all of these other lies easily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTzF2mgBRLk

Check out other vids on his channel. He goes over a lot of it.

How they fake ISS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJhL7y0ahUE

Wires:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIMf5fgUU_4

Actual stars (Luminaries)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJJ_z6pwUrE

Deliberately unfocused images of stars prove what?

It appears you have your work cut out for you in this thread.

Well given that the Earth is flat and the Mandella effect has erased Al Gores first documentary... I just think empirical evidence has shown a cooling trend like we are headed into a new Ice age.. or is there data showing C02 levels are correlating with cooling?

Where is that data coming from? Who would benefit from putting out false data? Soo cold now.

Troll score; 6/10.

Thanks I didn't put my back into it like I should have.

Still though please explain "Climategate".

Climategate? Well.. climate change is completely natural. In fact, we are still coming out of a mini ice age. As climate fluctuates so does the environment we live in such as rising oceans, desertification, different storm patterns. The problem is that there are billions of humans living on this planet now that rely on an balanced supply and demand as well as on reliable sources obtained from their immediate environment such as water and agriculture. Slight deviations from reliable supplies can have huge ramifications.

Climategate refers to an email hack of scientists. There has been a corruption of data that supports the conclusion of Global warming.

The beneficiaries of this data corruption are globalists and the gravy train scientists they give the grants to.

I suggest you go down the rabbit hole further sir with an open mind.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Every industry has some corruption in it. Just because a single football team cheats does not mean the entire NFL cheats. These are fallacies.

Football teams don't get to tax entire nations based on their carbon emissions ~ Bad analogy.

It's not a bad analogy you just read it wrong. There are thousands of climate scientists and just because a few of them are corrupt does not mean all of them are. This is a heavily fallacious argument.

It would depend on whether the academic system was a top-down system or a cloud system. If it's a top down system, with higher-ups shuffling and determining when and where lower-downs get to progress, then a small cadre of corrupt people just reward the opinions they want, and freeze out the inconvenient lower-downs.

If it's a cloud system, then yeah, a few bad apples wouldn't invalidate the system.

So it all hinges on whether academic review boards exist to groom some students and impair others. :)

Here is another analogy ifc you don't like that one. Two students out of a class of 30 cheated on their test. According to you that makes all of the class cheaters. Do you understand now?

Think harder Homer ...this is a conspiracy sub. Find the retired Climate Scientists who openly question the "Consensus".

Just because it's a conspiracy sub doesn't mean you shouldn't think critically or chronically use fallacies to make arguments.

Then dole out the facts and figures, make a reasoned argument ....or is the science settled? C'mon critical thinker bring us all up to speed.

Don't let yourself get so angry. Do you always throw tantrums like this? I've already explained to you how climate change is natural and how it impacts humanity. Maybe you passed that up because it doesn't fit your narrative I don't know. Not only does climate change happen naturally but we are in fact coming out of a mini ice age that lasted a few hundreds of years. I'm more than happy to answer your questions but I first need to know if you understand what climate change is. I have a hunch that you only see climate change from a political view point and are unaware that our planet's climate had not always been like it is today. So before I can explain more about climate change to you I would like you to tell me what you believe climate change means in your own words and why you don't believe in it. Do you believe earth has always had our current climate? Thank you in advance for answering my questions and I promise that once you give me your definition of climate change I will be able to answer your question more thoroughly.

It's just regulations and taxes

The earths climate has always changed. Most of North America was covered by ice 15,000 years ago. The earth has been warming up for quite a while. I think a lot of people have problems with the climate change science, when it's mentioned that the people should pay the government more tax money to do normal things, "to protect the earth".

It’s bad science. Climate science ignores a great deal of pertinent information, on purpose. This is not how science works.

This plus there is no actual definitive answer to what climate change actually means?

Let's assume that 95% of all scientists agree on climate (A very big claim with no real source plus what defines a scientist? Who did they include in this and more importantly who did they not include?). What exactly do they agree on? I have yet to see a definite answer to this?

Furthermore what does it mean to "deny" climate change?

What I see happening is there are these massive vague overarching terms like "climate change" being used two describe two different things.

On the one hand in these studies demonstrating scientists support it means that they agree that the climate is changing which is something extremely vague that most scientists obviously agree on.

Then on the other hand when someone questions a specific prediction or study that claims that in a short period of time some negative outcome will happen and someone questions that prediction (i.e. ocean levels will receed by x in 15 years causing massive death) it suddenly refers to that specific prediction anyone who denies that specific prediction is suddenly accused of denying "climate change" or the entire overarching idea of it.

Not only does this lead to a lack of real studies out of fear of scientists and politicians losing there credibility through this kind of political slander for even daring to question "established" science, but more importantly it creates a fear in the average person mind over the future as many of these predictions (with extremely low confidence bounds fyi) are negative.

Let's assume that 95% of all scientists agree on climate (A very big claim with no real source plus what defines a scientist? Who did they include in this and more importantly who did they not include?). What exactly do they agree on? I have yet to see a definite answer to this.

If you're serious about learning where these numbers come from, you can read this paper, which is one of the most frequently cited sources of this claim. Similar studies have been done before and since. But to answer some of your questions:

Who did they include in this and more importantly who did they not include?

In March 2012, we searched the ISI Web of Science for papers published from 1991–2011 using topic searches for 'global warming' or 'global climate change'. Article type was restricted to 'article', excluding books, discussions, proceedings papers and other document types. The search was updated in May 2012 with papers added to the Web of Science up to that date.

So it includes authors published in scientific journals who mentioned climate change terms.

There are lots of these studies, and most of them come up with a number around 97-98% of all scientists that mention these terms state that global climate change is exacerbated by human activities (AGW, or anthropogenic global warming). Studies that do not claim a position on AGW are not included.

Not trying to be a dick or challenge you, just trying to answer some of your questions!

97-98% of all scientists that mention these terms state that global climate change is exacerbated by human activities

Your proving my point. See how vaguely climate change is defined here. If I were to say that I don't think that the there will be any problems for the next 300 years is that "denying" climate change?

They aren't defining climate change at all in this paper. They are only searching for articles that use the terms "climate change" or "global warming," and then seeing if the authors concluded that mankind influences climate change or not.

If I were to say that I don't think that the there will be any problems for the next 300 years is that "denying" climate change?

I don't know, but that doesn't have anything to do with the paper I linked for you.

I was just trying to show you where that quote about 97% of scientists agreeing on climate change being anthropogenic comes from so you don't have to question it anymore.

Again, not trying to be confrontational here, just answering your question from your initial post.

AKA it’s been politicized. Everything loses its true essence once it gets attention in the political spectrum.

I feel like your 95% of scientists stat is a guess.

Randall Carlson on joe rogan experience. Climate change is a natural cycle of earths existence. Has been for thousands of years before man ever stepped foot on the planet.

3 hour interview but worth every minute.

That's the problem right there you claim to support "science" as part of your argument yet you throw around that 95% stat of out of thin air as evidence... You can't see the irony?

the one with graham hancock or the one with both hancock and michael shermer?

Neither. It's episode 314 I believe. The speaker is Randall carlson.

Apologies, both the ones i mentioned were carlson with those two.

But i got ya, thanks!

Hmm I'll have to check those out then!

95% of scientists? Did you ask them all personally? Did you ask who pays their salary too?

Don't worry about global warming. If everyone in the world gives me money for a carbon tax I'll fix it myself. I promise.

No? What are you worried about? Maybe you think I'll make the world a better place for nothing...

The stat is often misrepresented. It more accurately is 97% of actively publishing climate scientists. The study didn't ask them personally, instead it analyzed thier published paper. You can find the metholodgy and results here http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

You can read further analysis here http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Cool. I can fix it. You exhaled at least once while reading this. Carbon tax baby. Pay up.

Eh it hits polluting industries. They can either go green or pay from thier vast coffers. Companies have been posting record profits year after year since the recession. They can spare it.

And they'll be paying me. Don't worry about it. I'll fix em good.

https://youtu.be/52Mx0_8YEtg

Chiming in but not a climate change denier.

Climates change. Always have, always will.

The question is how much we (as a species) have affected that change.

And then there's the question of the financial scam that is the credit swap system.

My questions are more about who benefits from making us believe that climate change is entirely on us?

Climate change is real but how it is happening is where I think most people get it wrong. Obvious geoengineering tactics that have been in production since before the 2nd great war

The Earth historically (millions of years) has a very unstable climate and is constantly in a state of climate change. The denial part is denying that humans are the main culprit. The science is based on peer pressure and an atheistic dooms day cult. It's utterly fucking ridiculous.

Research the history of the 95% 97% consensus claim and you will find it to be on super shaky ground. But it was a talking point that global warming supporters latched onto strongly so it was further propped up after it became popular by more studies of studies who's sole purpose was to legitimize the percentage talking point.

This. I think the whole “95%” study was taken way too seriously. IIRC it was a survey put on by a masters student, who later when on to say he/she hopes no one uses it to legitimize climate change.

I have always focused on how climate change is used to increase governmental control over our lives. Thats my beef with the whole climate change issue, its an excuse to restrict the freedom of the individual. All of a sudden the governments are "doing the right thing in regards to climate change" and all of the things they are doing lead to further and further restrictions of the individual (not the company, I believe that companies are NOT individuals and do NOT have the same rights as individual).

Personally I think climate change is occuring because we have grown overly materialistic and pay zero attention to the spirit world inherent in the earth and we literally rape and pillage it with impunity. There are other beings living here (the elementals) and our disbelief in them is causing them to lose their willingness to co-operate with humanity. I don't think they mind if we dig a uranium mine or burn fossil fuels but the manner in which we do it (for comfort and entertainment and without any thankfulness or respect) is the biggest problem.

I think if we performed our "harvesting" of the earth's goodies with some reverance and respect instead of the mad dash for the filthy luchre performed by multi-national companies who gives zero fucks about anything but money, then we would be in better shape. Sounds crazy as fuck I know but this is not some new age concept that requires you to become flaky. It is a spiritual scientific observation made by many. See the Findhorn garden (in the UK) and also the book Nature Spirits and What They Say.

the vast vast majority of climate change deniers dont deny the climate is changing...what they refuse to accept is that humans are the cause..and thats only till it can be proven otherwise.

just like anti-vaxxers aren't anti vaccine but rather proponents of more and better testing to avoid life changing side effects.

the same reason why liberals call illegal aliens undocumented immigrants.

the phrasing is what it is to trick people into agreeing with the narrative.

Wish I could upvote this more!!!!! People don't understand how powerful language is and how it can be used to manipulate and propogate certain ideologies.

This. Pretending that the Sun isn't the chief source of global temp and weather changes is ridiculous. Look at the mean average temp changes on all of the other planetary bodies in the solar system and how they coincide with changes here and get back to me.

When the government takes it seriously (instead of using it as a means to make money, as it does now) then I will take it seriously.

Global warming is now global climate change. Usually sound, scientific theories don't need a re-brand. And this.

I have no trouble believing that we are destroying the planet and its reacting. But, as a rule, whenever a certain strain of dogma results in the allocation of trillions of dollars in a specific direction I just refuse to believe we are being told the truth.

Being 'Green' is an industry, an economic stimulant, that ripples through all areas of commerce. If 100,000 people buy new cars and shoes and homes and eat out more often because single stream recycling contracts are making people rich, are we sure the impact on the environment is net positive? Being 'green' should mean 'stop buying stuff and use your old stuff until it crumbles to dust', 'should' as in thats the message the movement would need for me to truly believe in it.

• Scientists who agree with climate change caused by humans get funding, if you disagree you don’t get funding and even risk losing your job;

• They can’t even predict the weather in a localised area effectively over the period of a week, let alone months or years but I am supposed to believe that they got this?

• I am pro environment, want clean energy usage etc, agree we need to reduce pollution, what does it matter if I think ‘man-made climate change’ is real or not. Stop talking about it so much and let’s just bloody well clean up our acts.

This is a good video, not overly impressed by the American weathermen but listen to the three scientists on the Australian panel: https://youtu.be/C5AUOWNg_sE

Climategate refers to an email hack of scientists. There has been a corruption of data that supports the conclusion of Global warming.

The beneficiaries of this data corruption are globalists and the gravy train scientists they give the grants to.

I suggest you go down the rabbit hole further sir with an open mind.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Eh it hits polluting industries. They can either go green or pay from thier vast coffers. Companies have been posting record profits year after year since the recession. They can spare it.

the one with graham hancock or the one with both hancock and michael shermer?

It would depend on whether the academic system was a top-down system or a cloud system. If it's a top down system, with higher-ups shuffling and determining when and where lower-downs get to progress, then a small cadre of corrupt people just reward the opinions they want, and freeze out the inconvenient lower-downs.

If it's a cloud system, then yeah, a few bad apples wouldn't invalidate the system.

So it all hinges on whether academic review boards exist to groom some students and impair others. :)