2024 Hurricane Season

[fpc4life99]

"Consensus" can be wrong and can change too often to warrant civilization ending governmental policies.

"Reputable" is in the eye of the beholder. 51 National Security "experts" wrote a consensus that was a lie not too long ago that changed History, but they were deemed reputable. Many entities cashed government checks to do research that was based on the Hockey Stick graph lie, but they were reputable.

Aside from Global Thermonuclear War, anthropogenic climate change is at worst a lie and at best amounts to nothing compared to the Earth's natural processes or the Sun cycles.

So you're suggesting that unless a belief or understanding remains static, it shouldn't be considered worthy of exploration? Can you provide a few examples where unchanging beliefs have always been absolute truths throughout history?

While I understand that perceptions of credibility can vary, entities like NASA are typically recognized for their rigorous scientific research and data analysis. Should we disregard such organizations entirely, or is there a way to scrutinize information without dismissing reputable sources altogether?

As for climate impacts, do you believe that human activities have no impact on the environment whatsoever? Should all environmental changes be categorized as purely natural phenomena?

[Big Tyme]

If you focus on the last 150 years, you miss the entire story.

Clean air. Clean water. Feed the poor. This should be our focus.

Attachment 19859

Agreed.
The issue with this graph is that the Y is too big. Let's find a graph that shows less than a 20 meter interval. A 1 meter rise would be a major issue.

[CajunVic]

So you're suggesting that unless a belief or understanding remains static, it shouldn't be considered worthy of exploration? Can you provide a few examples where unchanging beliefs have always been absolute truths throughout history?

While I understand that perceptions of credibility can vary, entities like NASA are typically recognized for their rigorous scientific research and data analysis. Should we disregard such organizations entirely, or is there a way to scrutinize information without dismissing reputable sources altogether?

As for climate impacts, do you believe that human activities have no impact on the environment whatsoever? Should all environmental changes be categorized as purely natural phenomena?

1. NASA made it to the moon, so at least that end result was actually accomplished

2. While we all know that innovation takes TIME and MONEY, at some point, when there are no tangible results, then reality says it must be evaluated for a scam . . .

. . . that is where I am with clean energy efforts . . . it is about TIME for MONEY to run out from the gubment . . .

[CajunVic]

Agreed.
The issue with this graph is that the Y is too big. Let's find a graph that shows less than a 20 meter interval. A 1 meter rise would be a major issue.

. . . so you are saying that was graphed into importance . . .

[RedTails]

1. NASA made it to the moon, so at least that end result was actually accomplished

2. While we all know that innovation takes TIME and MONEY, at some point, when there are no tangible results, then reality says it must be evaluated for a scam . . .

. . . that is where I am with clean energy efforts . . . it is about TIME for MONEY to run out from the gubment . . .

The end result of true clean energy is a golden goose worth chasing IMO. I guess that's where we all disagree. Is there corruption and greed intertwined in the effort? I'll answer that with another question: are humans involved in the effort?

One day there will be a breakthrough.

[fpc4life99]

1. NASA made it to the moon, so at least that end result was actually accomplished

2. While we all know that innovation takes TIME and MONEY, at some point, when there are no tangible results, then reality says it must be evaluated for a scam . . .

. . . that is where I am with clean energy efforts . . . it is about TIME for MONEY to run out from the gubment . . .

It's true that NASA's successful moon landing shows us why it's important to keep exploring and updating our beliefs based on new evidence. Just like how NASA's achievement changed our understanding of space, our views on important issues like climate change also need to evolve as we learn more from scientists.

Think about how early settlers might not have believed we could land on the moon or even fly in airplanes. Back then, those ideas probably seemed impossible or weren't even thought about. But with research and new discoveries, our beliefs about what's possible have changed a lot. That's why it's crucial to listen to scientists and update our beliefs based on what they learn, especially when it comes to big challenges like protecting our environment."

As for your question about research funding, I'm curios as to your thoughts on where that money and research should be spent or do you feel we have reached the limits of our advancement as a civilization?

[CajunVic]

The end result of true clean energy is a golden goose worth chasing IMO. I guess that's where we all disagree. Is there corruption and greed intertwined in the effort? I'll answer that with another question: are humans involved in the effort?

One day there will be a breakthrough.

. . . no doubt that there is definitely room for fair evaluations on both sides . . . I tend to be more conservative and skeptical of those using OPM so my bias says its been long enough . . . others may be more lenient in that respect and believe more time and money should be afforded . . .

[JamesTheJeweler]

"Consensus" can be wrong and can change too often to warrant civilization ending governmental policies.

"Reputable" is in the eye of the beholder. 51 National Security "experts" wrote a consensus that was a lie not too long ago that changed History, but they were deemed reputable. Many entities cashed government checks to do research that was based on the Hockey Stick graph lie, but they were reputable.

Aside from Global Thermonuclear War, anthropogenic climate change is at worst a lie and at best amounts to nothing compared to the Earth's natural processes or the Sun cycles.

"How dare you!"

[CajunVic]

It's true that NASA's successful moon landing shows us why it's important to keep exploring and updating our beliefs based on new evidence. Just like how NASA's achievement changed our understanding of space, our views on important issues like climate change also need to evolve as we learn more from scientists.

Think about how early settlers might not have believed we could land on the moon or even fly in airplanes. Back then, those ideas probably seemed impossible or weren't even thought about. But with research and new discoveries, our beliefs about what's possible have changed a lot. That's why it's crucial to listen to scientists and update our beliefs based on what they learn, especially when it comes to big challenges like protecting our environment."

As for your question about research funding, I'm curios as to your thoughts on where that money and research should be spent or do you feel we have reached the limits of our advancement as a civilization?

. . . i believe we have far reached the limits of our advancement with respect to clean energy . . . i believe enough MONEY and TIME has been spent on that concept and that any further expenditures of OPM continues the scam that is has proven to be . . . JMO

[JamesTheJeweler]

Sea levels are rising. I am not sure what point you are attempting to make

So what was causing the rise and fall of sea levels, throughout the history of earth, before cars, factories and farting cows?

[CajunVic]

So what was causing the rise and fall of sea levels, throughout the history of earth, before cars, factories and farting cows?

. . . hurricanes cause the sea to rise as the hurricane approaches land . . .

[CrazyCajun]

So what was causing the rise and fall of sea levels, throughout the history of earth, before cars, factories and farting cows?

Why would banks lend billions of dollars in loans on ocean front properties? Why would insurance companies insure them? Why do all the climate alarmist own said properties if they all really believed they were about to be under water?