brad
Senior Member
Posts: 156 
Likes: 288
|
Post by brad on Nov 12, 2014 17:30:00 GMT 10
It wasn't directed at any one person, I have seen this conversation escalate on other forums to a point where people stop talking to each other. In my view this is the best prep forum out there with a great group of real people and would hate to see it go south.
We are all passionate about things in different areas and when two people passionate about either side of a debate they tend to become rivals instead of working together to work out the actual issue.
My theory on climate change and population growth points to one direct based on data and research nothing else and there are a lot of people out there doing the same research that found the same end point. When you involve money, government funding and regulate who gets it as per what he mentioned in the video you get biased papers.
That has long been an issue in these areas, there is a lot of upset scientists because of papers being complete on sample data. Here is an example of what is going on at the moment with the climate change papers.
Take the below table as your dataset, you have the year and the average temperature:
Year Temp
1) 40
2) 30
3) 40
4) 30
5) 40
6) 30
7) 50
8) 60
9) 50
10) 40
11) 30
12) 40
13) 30
14) 40
15) 30
16) 40
17) 30
18) 40
19) 50
20) ?
21)
By seeing the entire data set you could assume that year 20 will hit 60c and you could assume that year 21 could hit 50c if you are looking at the pattern of all the data.
However if you start your data sample from year 10 it would be easy to assume that the temperature in year 20 will hit 60 and year 21 at 70. Why because there are 10c jumps and it looks like it is increasing.
By only seeing half the data it is easy to set theories on what is going to happen. All the papers on climate change, theories based on different data. The government funded papers are using less data, these are the same data sets you can see in the media. The headlines "Data shows Global warming"
They are not lying, the data does show Global warming, and with the data sample they show it looks bad as they are showing a stable line then our current day spike. However, if you look at the full data set you will see there is no reason for alarm.
Current temperatures are a lot lower than what they have been in the past, even in modern history (modern as in recorded). They play with the data, the most annoying part is they don't even try to hide it, open a history book and you will see England has reported temperatures that would make people think it is the end of the world today.
We have ice ages, mini ice ages, extreme heat as part of the natural cycle. Hens the change from Global warming to climate change. The scientific community embarrassed the government on global warming. So now with the climate change it is a new tactic.
The government have made out like there are only two sides, pro climate change or anti climate change. The try to make it out like scientists (majority of them by the way) are against climate change. They also say that 90% of scientists agree with climate change, it is a play with data and words.
The 90% that is only 90% of the ones that get the funding and this is what he is saying in the video. That is like me doing a survey on 10 preppers then saying 90% of all preppers believe X.
All a play on words, the scientists that say the government is wrong are not saying climate change isn't happening, in fact those are the same scientists that made the government look stupid by telling them the climate is changing because it always has.
So the whole "Climate change" debate is total BS, everyone agrees that it is changing it is just a debate about if it is natural or man made and the majority of the TOTAL scientific community agrees it is natural. That hasn't changed, these are the same people that told the government global warming is not real because the climate is constantly changing. Our current weather pattern is NOT normal for earth. We should be concerned about the NORMAL weather pattern of earth as it is not a stable pattern.
All this evidence is not disputed, all this is in the text books you read at school. It has been known for years, read the text books, research and find the data on the history of earths weather patterns. It is all there however some how people are stuck on the Pro or Anti argument when it was never debated.
What has been mixed into this debate is human resource raping. Very different topic and has nothing to do with climate change. Climate change is a separate area all together. Raping the planet does have effects on the planet no doubt about it, you dig a hole and the effect is there is a hole there, take out all the ground water and other resources, dig mining tunnels, divert water and so on you can increase the odds of getting sink holes.
That being said, war that will cause man made climate change. The cold war was very close to that, dropping bombs and blowing up the planet creating massive clouds, possible setting of volcanic activity adding to the clouds, that will be man made climate change. living the way we are now is just rapping the planet not changing the weather patterns.
|
|
krull68
VIP Member
Posts: 535
Likes: 875
|
Post by krull68 on Nov 13, 2014 10:19:47 GMT 10
wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/12/study-farmers-and-scientists-divided-over-climate-change/Study shows operational engineers (farmers) verses theoretical scientists (climate scientists) do not agree on the climate. As for myself, I will side with the guys who put their own money up rather than the guys who live off the govt (tax payers, ie: you and me) teet regardless of if they are right or wrong. I would though like to see a test done. 1/ climate scientists do a prediction for next calendar year 2015 on their wee computers with their models. farmers do what they have always done. 2/ select an area of farm land, say 500,000 acres should do nicely. 3/ split 50/50 between farmers and scientists. 4/ scientist group follows their recommendations, farmers use their local knowledge. 5/ see outcome at beginning of 2016 on who is right and who is wrong. Personally I think this would be a perfect testable, repeatable, observable, scientific experiment. I cannot see anyone who is not anti-science thinking this would be a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 13, 2014 11:09:08 GMT 10
wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/12/study-farmers-and-scientists-divided-over-climate-change/Study shows operational engineers (farmers) verses theoretical scientists (climate scientists) do not agree on the climate. As for myself, I will side with the guys who put their own money up rather than the guys who live off the govt (tax payers, ie: you and me) teet regardless of if they are right or wrong. I would though like to see a test done. 1/ climate scientists do a prediction for next calendar year 2015 on their wee computers with their models. farmers do what they have always done. 2/ select an area of farm land, say 500,000 acres should do nicely. 3/ split 50/50 between farmers and scientists. 4/ scientist group follows their recommendations, farmers use their local knowledge. 5/ see outcome at beginning of 2016 on who is right and who is wrong. Personally I think this would be a perfect testable, repeatable, observable, scientific experiment. I cannot see anyone who is not anti-science thinking this would be a bad idea. I'm sure there will be plenty of people lining up for a government grant to conduct this study :-) |
|
krull68
VIP Member
Posts: 535
Likes: 875
|
Post by krull68 on Nov 13, 2014 12:47:59 GMT 10
But that is the point, they already get the grants to do the computer studies, which by their own admission are not accurate except in retrospect. What I am saying is let them put the grant money they already get and use that to do some real operational experimental science in the real world, unless of course they do not want to get their widdle hands dirty (eekk not dirt anything but dirt).
I will take operational science (known as operational engineering) over theoretical science any day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 13, 2014 13:56:29 GMT 10
I will take operational science (known as operational engineering) over theoretical science any day. I couldn't agree more. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2014 16:55:23 GMT 10
But that is the point, they already get the grants to do the computer studies, which by their own admission are not accurate except in retrospect. What I am saying is let them put the grant money they already get and use that to do some real operational experimental science in the real world, unless of course they do not want to get their widdle hands dirty (eekk not dirt anything but dirt). I will take operational science (known as operational engineering) over theoretical science any day. Engineering is an applied science: words aren't that scary! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2014 17:11:46 GMT 10
wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/12/study-farmers-and-scientists-divided-over-climate-change/Study shows operational engineers (farmers) verses theoretical scientists (climate scientists) do not agree on the climate. As for myself, I will side with the guys who put their own money up rather than the guys who live off the govt (tax payers, ie: you and me) teet regardless of if they are right or wrong. I would though like to see a test done. 1/ climate scientists do a prediction for next calendar year 2015 on their wee computers with their models. farmers do what they have always done. 2/ select an area of farm land, say 500,000 acres should do nicely. 3/ split 50/50 between farmers and scientists. 4/ scientist group follows their recommendations, farmers use their local knowledge. 5/ see outcome at beginning of 2016 on who is right and who is wrong. Personally I think this would be a perfect testable, repeatable, observable, scientific experiment. I cannot see anyone who is not anti-science thinking this would be a bad idea. I'm sure there will be plenty of people lining up for a government grant to conduct this study :-) Most of the people on these reports have been doing the same government job for over 20 years. You simply don't get to put together reports for government departments unless you've done your time and understand how the reporting process works. Saying farmers don't need government departments to help them make a profit is embarrasing. It's a competitive world and a good farmer simply makes money. If you're proposing that government money is wasted in agricultural studies you simply don't understand the need for resourcefulness on the farm. Mapping out regions that simply won't produce is important otherwise you have what's called a third-world country where people waste their time and effort trying to produce crops and in the end their governments erode their tax base trying to keep afloat an idea that won't work. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 14, 2014 17:20:32 GMT 10
What farmers truly don't need are government departments hindering them. Farmers need - and deserve - all the help they can get.
I never proposed that "government money is wasted in agricultural studies" per se, but I do maintain that there are applicants for various government grants whose claims may be less than deserving.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2014 17:24:47 GMT 10
The climate is changing, do doubt about that, and studies and data show that it is a natural cycle. The steady weather pattern we have now is not normal for earth, all the studies based on samples from around the world show that earths most common weather pattern is an unstable one. So seasons (our current weather pattern) is not normal for earth. This data has been around for years long before the "Climate change" and "Global Warming" money grab. What we are doing to the planet is not good though, we are raping the planet, biting the hand that feeds us and that needs to stop. Easter Island is a good example of what we are going to do with the planet. A once heavily resource rich island is now valley without trees, we are doing the same everywhere else in the world. So the data, majority of scientists ( the ones not funded by the government) all confirm what they have been saying for years based on real data that our current weather pattern is not normal. Melting Ice, yep going to happen and has done so for long before we where here. Increased carbon levels, again, normal pattern. We have next to no impact on the carbon increase and that has been proven however by us making rivers, dams, chopping down trees and terraforming we are only going to make what we have left worse. We build large dams, then in area that was once a river we build houses, then cry because our houses where flooded during a storm or dam release. We build homes in Cylcone alley and cry when a cyclone rips the house apart, then rebuild in the same spot. We build houses to code, then cry when a storm or other disaster pulls it down. I spot of reality is needed, natural river, cyclone alley = Don't build there Standard building codes = Why, make it stronger than the code so it will last Climate change is a very touchy topic for a lot of people and there will be a lot of people that will hate what I am saying here however I am not saying anything based on things I found on the internet. I am not "Researching" news articles to gather facts. I am only saying what my research from analyzing data myself, speaking with scientists and looking at their research. We all know the government covers things up, we know they have their best interest in mind and we have all seen that on many occasions. That is why a lot of people are here, they want to prep because they have little faith in the government. Yet a lot of people knowing all this still believe what they are being told by the very people they don't trust. A politician has no idea what is going on as they are not scientists however they have setup a very good funding campaign to fund scientists to produce theories to help their campaigns. These are all just theories based on what data they have, you need to remember that. Arguing climate change is the same as arguing string theory. We need more data to work out what is going on, we need a heap more research. As for the debate scale. The scientists that are against the governments climate change scam are not against climate change, they are against corruption and misinformation. They all agree climate change is happening, however Government say pay us to stop the world from changing based on very little data and a hell of a lot of funding. And the scientific community say the climate is changing, natural cycle however yes, we are screwing the planet and need to stop but we are not the cause of the changes in climate. I can understand why people are getting upset with each other over this but in reality there is no reason to. We just have to prep for what is coming our way. We are all here as preppers for different reasons. It doesn't matter what the event is, it doesn't matter how it is caused and who is to blame it just matters we are preparing for the worst and working together, sharing knowledge and leaving the political crap for the minority group called the government. Prep, learn, share, leave the science to the scientists and the prepping to the preppers. Saying government funded science is not trustworthy is like saying technology doesn't exist. Hello internet: where did you come from again! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2014 17:32:52 GMT 10
What farmers truly don't need are government departments hindering them. Farmers need - and deserve - all the help they can get. I never proposed that "government money is wasted in agricultural studies" per se, but I do maintain that there are applicants for various government grants whose claims may be less than deserving. Government departments keep their citizens competitive on the world market: that's business! How are they hindering them? Money wouldn't even exist to do business with if it weren't for governments: governments exist to collect a tax base and the definition of a third world country is its unproductive use of resources that would allow their own citizens to waste their time chasing fairytales on a land that could never produce crops or graze livestock with insufficent methods that wouldn't allow them to compete in the globally competitive marketplace. |
|
krull68
VIP Member
Posts: 535
Likes: 875
|
Post by krull68 on Nov 14, 2014 17:32:58 GMT 10
Sorry clown, you are way off topic on that comment mate.
What I was talking about had/has absolutely nothing to do with Govt assistance for farmers.
What I was in fact talking about, which you threw up a straw man argument so as to ignore the point, is, let the climate alarmists put their theories into practice against farmers who work the land year in year out, working on short medium and long term weather and climate.
So I will break it down a bit easier for you.
Climate scientists, use your models to arrange planting for 2015.
Farmers, use their methods to arrange planting for 2015.
1/2 a million acres, split between the two, a number of farms next to each other should work well, as this cuts out the sporadic rain fall patterns that can happen on occasion.
As the growing season finalises in 2015, weigh up who grew more crops, the scientists or the farmers.
To finalise the argument, I am saying climate warming proponents need to put up or shut up. Also please note, not once in that proposition did I mention Govt, which makes your comment a read herring and a straw man argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2014 17:38:41 GMT 10
Sorry clown, you are way off topic on that comment mate. What I was talking about had/has absolutely nothing to do with Govt assistance for farmers. What I was in fact talking about, which you threw up a straw man argument so as to ignore the point, is, let the climate alarmists put their theories into practice against farmers who work the land year in year out, working on short medium and long term weather and climate. So I will break it down a bit easier for you. Climate scientists, use your models to arrange planting for 2015. Farmers, use their methods to arrange planting for 2015. 1/2 a million acres, split between the two, a number of farms next to each other should work well, as this cuts out the sporadic rain fall patterns that can happen on occasion. As the growing season finalises in 2015, weigh up who grew more crops, the scientists or the farmers. To finalise the argument, I am saying climate warming proponents need to put up or shut up. Also please note, not once in that proposition did I mention Govt, which makes your comment a read herring and a straw man argument. Ah, so you're proposing to use climate models for a projection of one year into the future! Cool,... why?? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2014 17:40:52 GMT 10
Sorry clown, you are way off topic on that comment mate. What I was talking about had/has absolutely nothing to do with Govt assistance for farmers. What I was in fact talking about, which you threw up a straw man argument so as to ignore the point, is, let the climate alarmists put their theories into practice against farmers who work the land year in year out, working on short medium and long term weather and climate. So I will break it down a bit easier for you. Climate scientists, use your models to arrange planting for 2015. Farmers, use their methods to arrange planting for 2015. 1/2 a million acres, split between the two, a number of farms next to each other should work well, as this cuts out the sporadic rain fall patterns that can happen on occasion. As the growing season finalises in 2015, weigh up who grew more crops, the scientists or the farmers. To finalise the argument, I am saying climate warming proponents need to put up or shut up. Also please note, not once in that proposition did I mention Govt, which makes your comment a read herring and a straw man argument. Lastly, did you know science is simply method? I propose you think farmers wake up everyday and run around like a chook with no head! |
|
krull68
VIP Member
Posts: 535
Likes: 875
|
Post by krull68 on Nov 14, 2014 18:23:00 GMT 10
Yes I am proposing they project 1 year into the future, after all, if they can't get one year into the future right, why should I believe them when they are telling me about 50 to 100 years into the future, which is handy for them as they seem to project just far enough into the future to let them die before being disproved, very convenient.
Scientific method, theory, test, repeat, observe, report, test against theory, throw out, adjust or rethink theory against verifiable observable repeatable testing. That's the basics, if it isn't tested and verified, it is just a theory and not practical engineering.
And lastly, my family on both sides have farmed in this country for over 150 years, so no. but if they did get up every day and run around like chooks with no heads, we would call them climate alarmists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 14, 2014 19:32:16 GMT 10
What farmers truly don't need are government departments hindering them. Farmers need - and deserve - all the help they can get. I never proposed that "government money is wasted in agricultural studies" per se, but I do maintain that there are applicants for various government grants whose claims may be less than deserving. Government departments keep their citizens competitive on the world market: that's business! How are they hindering them? Money wouldn't even exist to do business with if it weren't for governments: governments exist to collect a tax base and the definition of a third world country is its unproductive use of resources that would allow their own citizens to waste their time chasing fairytales on a land that could never produce crops or graze livestock with insufficent methods that wouldn't allow them to compete in the globally competitive marketplace. Any business - be it a farm or otherwise - does not need to be hindered by government. This includes excessive compliance and paperwork requirements, and excessive taxation. I know that in both businesses I manage, government involvement is most often a WOFTAM which reduces the competitiveness of Australian businesses overseas. Money wouldn't exist if it wasn't for government? Maybe not; that's where free trade and barter comes in. What was used before money? Trade of goods and services (including precious metals, etc). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 10:57:14 GMT 10
Yes I am proposing they project 1 year into the future, after all, if they can't get one year into the future right, why should I believe them when they are telling me about 50 to 100 years into the future, which is handy for them as they seem to project just far enough into the future to let them die before being disproved, very convenient. Scientific method, theory, test, repeat, observe, report, test against theory, throw out, adjust or rethink theory against verifiable observable repeatable testing. That's the basics, if it isn't tested and verified, it is just a theory and not practical engineering. And lastly, my family on both sides have farmed in this country for over 150 years, so no. but if they did get up every day and run around like chooks with no heads, we would call them climate alarmists. Technology is the application of science: engineering is an applied science. You're trying to say climate science is looking for projections of 1 year into the future and it's simply incorrect. Measurement is conducted with technology: how do you make the measuring device and what in fact is going to be measured and why- science is an art! Yeh, test repeat and the endless writing of boring reports and stuff but you forget that the uncertainty principle is at the heart of all science: the fact that you can't measure everything. To expect that climate science should supposedly be able to tell you what is happening a year from now is not even something tony abbott would say... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 11:03:31 GMT 10
Government departments keep their citizens competitive on the world market: that's business! How are they hindering them? Money wouldn't even exist to do business with if it weren't for governments: governments exist to collect a tax base and the definition of a third world country is its unproductive use of resources that would allow their own citizens to waste their time chasing fairytales on a land that could never produce crops or graze livestock with insufficent methods that wouldn't allow them to compete in the globally competitive marketplace. Any business - be it a farm or otherwise - does not need to be hindered by government. This includes excessive compliance and paperwork requirements, and excessive taxation. I know that in both businesses I manage, government involvement is most often a WOFTAM which reduces the competitiveness of Australian businesses overseas. Money wouldn't exist if it wasn't for government? Maybe not; that's where free trade and barter comes in. What was used before money? Trade of goods and services (including precious metals, etc). Lol, barter: yeh, let's see how mass production lines reap stockmarket fortunes with a world that barters.. Excessive compliance is excessive compliance but as for departments helping farmers to become competitive that is unquestioned! |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 15, 2014 11:23:44 GMT 10
Any business - be it a farm or otherwise - does not need to be hindered by government. This includes excessive compliance and paperwork requirements, and excessive taxation. I know that in both businesses I manage, government involvement is most often a WOFTAM which reduces the competitiveness of Australian businesses overseas. Money wouldn't exist if it wasn't for government? Maybe not; that's where free trade and barter comes in. What was used before money? Trade of goods and services (including precious metals, etc). Lol, barter: yeh, let's see how mass production lines reap stockmarket fortunes with a world that barters.. Excessive compliance is excessive compliance but as for departments helping farmers to become competitive that is unquestioned! Let me repeat myself - " free trade and barter" (emphasis added). You may not question whether departments help farmers, but I certainly do. I question the net result of benefit vs. hindrance by the various bureaucracies that impose their red tape on business (including farmers). The validity of this question increases as I speak with more and more farmers. Please explain how actions by government such as, for example, banning live cattle exports based on a knee-jerk reaction to a dubious story by the MSM is of any benefit to farmers. Or is that unquestioned also? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 11:54:58 GMT 10
Lol, barter: yeh, let's see how mass production lines reap stockmarket fortunes with a world that barters.. Excessive compliance is excessive compliance but as for departments helping farmers to become competitive that is unquestioned! Let me repeat myself - " free trade and barter" (emphasis added). You may not question whether departments help farmers, but I certainly do. I question the net result of benefit vs. hindrance by the various bureaucracies that impose their red tape on business (including farmers). The validity of this question increases as I speak with more and more farmers. Please explain how actions by government such as, for example, banning live cattle exports based on a knee-jerk reaction to a dubious story by the MSM is of any benefit to farmers. Or is that unquestioned also? Yeh, you think I'm not connected with people who care about their animals... seriously: this is Australia buddy! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 11:59:44 GMT 10
- the basics of idealistic free-trade is that both buyer and seller see value in an economic exchange. Some people actually care about where knives go and the government of the people that lets that slide has a tarnished reputation, hence the so-called kneejerk reaction: get a grip buddy, economic exchange takes place when two parties see value in that exchange and NOT AT ANY COST!
|
|
