2 2
rushmc

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Recommended Posts

On 7/12/2020 at 5:58 AM, kallend said:

Meanwhile, in the Arctic.

Fig3-350x270.png

Meanwhile in the Arctic

image.png.b847fe7ef251c9d498b5a3857637d97b.png

Within the overall decline, it is notable that the most recent 13 years, from 2007 to 2019, have shown very little decline (Figure 3b)

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Do you mean this?

“I predict you won't post an acknowledgement of how incredibly wrong you were.“

given that I just said I was wrong, your prediction falls flat.

Outstanding. He quoted your exact words about how people would attack the messenger and not address the video content (no one attacked, content was addressed), and you interpreted it as your hurricane prediction from a half dozen pages ago.

It's no wonder you get dunked on so much for posting shit that doesn't actually support your views, given you can't read what's right in front of you... xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you understand the reason I made that comment was to prevent those meaningless ad hominem on the messenger while ignoring the message.  After that post, they couldn’t attack the messenger and pretty much HAD to address the content.....and they did.¬¬
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

those meaningless ad hominem on the messenger while ignoring the message. 

They're not always meaningless though. The PragerU vid was perfectly valid to dismiss without review, they're about as credible as a flat-earther video - there will be some facts presented, but they will then be spun and distorted into some unholy mess that doesn't reflect reality. Using pretty charts that mean nothing doesn't get them brownie points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

They're not always meaningless though. The PragerU vid was perfectly valid to dismiss without review, they're about as credible as a flat-earther video - there will be some facts presented, but they will then be spun and distorted into some unholy mess that doesn't reflect reality. Using pretty charts that mean nothing doesn't get them brownie points.

One might ask if the responses would have been the same had he not preemptively called them out.

I'm going with "Remarkably different"

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his points.

I did not watch the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

They're not always meaningless though. The PragerU vid was perfectly valid to dismiss without review, they're about as credible as a flat-earther video - there will be some facts presented, but they will then be spun and distorted into some unholy mess that doesn't reflect reality. Using pretty charts that mean nothing doesn't get them brownie points.

And you didn’t even watch the video.....face palm.  Why don’t you suck it up and watch the video.  If it is as bad as you claim, it will be easy to debunk and you will send me away, running with my tail between my legs.  My bet is that you won’t/can’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

And you didn’t even watch the video.....face palm.  Why don’t you suck it up and watch the video.  If it is as bad as you claim, it will be easy to debunk and you will send me away, running with my tail between my legs.  My bet is that you won’t/can’t.

I didn't watch the one from this thread, others did and responded. I've taken the time to find the PragerU one buried in the *other* thread, and am watching now - I hope my ad-blocker is doing its job because I don't want those hacks making a cent off my view.

I am one minute in, and they've already failed twice.

First item is the claims about renewables already starting to hit efficiency limits - classic PU, yes they throw up some figures that could well be valid, but there is no source. They rely on people seeing numbers and assuming that means good science. They also just dismiss out of hand that new efficiencies can be found - not that they're not here, but that they're just going to not happen and ignore anyone who says they can. Lastly (on this item) the low percentages are clearly being used to make the energy sources look poor, while conveniently and deliberately not acknowledging how insane the amount of solar radiation hitting the surface of the earth every day is. 33% of a million is always going to be bigger than 90% of 100,000, for example.

Second item is the claim that for wind and solar to work the wind has to blow and sun has to shine. For wind, sure, conceded. For solar, holy fuck how is this dumbass, completely debunked talking point still doing the rounds?? Solar panels work when it's cloudy, this is not in dispute at all. Efficiency lowered? Absolutely. That's not the claim in the video though.

One minute into a 5 minute video and there's already a flat out lie.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt so I could at least claim to have approached this in good faith. I'm not watching the rest, and stand 100% by my original claim - PragerU have zero credibility, none.

EDIT: Here's a much longer video by someone smarter than me breaking down PragerU for the complete hacks they are: 

 

Edited by mistercwood
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

I didn't watch the one from this thread, others did and responded. I've taken the time to find the PragerU one buried in the *other* thread, and am watching now - I hope my ad-blocker is doing its job because I don't want those hacks making a cent off my view.

I am one minute in, and they've already failed twice.

First item is the claims about renewables already starting to hit efficiency limits - classic PU, yes they throw up some figures that could well be valid, but there is no source. They rely on people seeing numbers and assuming that means good science. They also just dismiss out of hand that new efficiencies can be found - not that they're not here, but that they're just going to not happen and ignore anyone who says they can. Lastly (on this item) the low percentages are clearly being used to make the energy sources look poor, while conveniently and deliberately not acknowledging how insane the amount of solar radiation hitting the surface of the earth every day is. 33% of a million is always going to be bigger than 90% of 100,000, for example.

Second item is the claim that for wind and solar to work the wind has to blow and sun has to shine. For wind, sure, conceded. For solar, holy fuck how is this dumbass, completely debunked talking point still doing the rounds?? Solar panels work when it's cloudy, this is not in dispute at all. Efficiency lowered? Absolutely. That's not the claim in the video though.

One minute into a 5 minute video and there's already a flat out lie.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt so I could at least claim to have approached this in good faith. I'm not watching the rest, and stand 100% by my original claim - PragerU have zero credibility, none.

Yeah but the video is really good, why can't you just say it is really good......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 The article is NOT by Dennis Prager it is by Mark Mills, (a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, where he co-directs an Institute on Manufacturing Science and Innovation.)  Don’t be so close minded that you don’t even consider other points of view.
yes I know it might upset you because he he gets all factsy and you can’t dispute his numbers other they lack the feeling of truthyness you require.  I think even Kallend would have to admit the guy is not some lightweight flake.  I wouldn’t be surprised if they knew each other.
BTW Kallend did NOT say the above.... his attribution is an artifact of my clumsy cut and  paste 
Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Prager could repost the Constitution and the folks on the left would claim it was right wing propaganda without even reading it.  
 

Its like the boy that cried wolf. 

Even if you have nuggets of truth buried in your rhetoric, its still 99% rhetoric.

It's the reason I don't watch Fox News anymore.  Every now and then, they have a piece that isn't really 100% leaned toward the right.  But that doesn't mean that they won't fabricate photos and journalism that fits their narrative.

If you start with a position, and only seek facts that will back your views up, while actively ignoring the parts that bring your position into question, it makes you intellectually dishonest.  That is where Prager lives.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mistercwood said:

 

EDIT: Here's a much longer video by someone smarter than me breaking down PragerU for the complete hacks they are: 

 

For your sake, I truly hope you are smarter than the producer of this video.  Yes I watched the entire thing.  Actually it was kind of fun as I debunked nearly every one of his points as he was making them.  His two main points?  PragerU is not really a university (Duh) and capitalism? BAD.  (Yet he fails to offer an alternative)
It is thirty minutes of setting up then knocking down a series of out of context straw men.  For example he equates the career choices that grown women make to choices made by school aged boys.  He claimed that PragerU cannot be trusted because of its right wing bias and in nearly the same sentence he declares his left wing predilections.  If this is the best the left can muster, I feel sorry for them.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Its like the boy that cried wolf. 

Even if you have nuggets of truth buried in your rhetoric, its still 99% rhetoric.

It's the reason I don't watch Fox News anymore.  Every now and then, they have a piece that isn't really 100% leaned toward the right.  But that doesn't mean that they won't fabricate photos and journalism that fits their narrative.

If you start with a position, and only seek facts that will back your views up, while actively ignoring the parts that bring your position into question, it makes you intellectually dishonest.  That is where Prager lives.

 

 

Agreed, that is why I watch MSNBC and listen to NPR.  I don’t need my ideas to be reinforced, I need them to be challenged. That is why I just spent the last half hour watching “How PragerU Lies to You”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Agreed, that is why I watch MSNBC and listen to NPR.  I don’t need my ideas to be reinforced, I need them to be challenged. That is why I just spent the last half hour watching “How PragerU Lies to You”

Too funny. This entire thread is the antithesis that you have a flexible learning attitude about energy, the environment and the relationship of man's influence on the environment.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2020 at 9:52 AM, turtlespeed said:

3/5ths or so has passed.

2/5ths remain . . .

And the rate we are going - we will meet and exceed all of the NOAA predictions, with the exception of maybe the strength of Cat 3 or above.

But Brent will take that micro point and disqualify the entire prediction and say - "See NOAA cant predict anything - so Climate change caused by (non natural introduction of chemicals and elements and compounds into the air)AKA Man Made Climate Change is a hoax!"

Am I right?

Turtle, look at your vehement defense of everything anti-democrat in the same light. 
Note I didn’t say Trump or even republican — anti-democrat in the political arena. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
2 2