Open letter to our true believers on climate.

SteinwayTransitCorp

Well-known member
1.) in 1973 the scientific world predicted the world was cooling and by 1985 we would be in an ice age. It would be snowing in Miami. This did not age well.
2.) in the 1980s we had the hockey stick graph. It showed that by the year 2000 the Earth would basically be on fire. That did not age well either.
3.) we now have climate change we use the word climate change because by calling this, you are fundamentally, right the climate is always changing.
4.) we now say with certainty that storms are getting worse and worse. We of course say this because the cost of Repair is off the charts. What we do not state is the population has more than tripled living the shoreline property is much more expensive and costs are off the charts. By using the explanation of our climate people today the hurricanes of the 20s would have caused trillions of dollars worth of damage in today’s dollars.
5.) the people who tell us we need to cut back we need to not use natural resources. We need to move away from fossil fuels. Strangely enough are the only ones who benefit from selling things that don’t work. Let’s take a look at a solar panel. It starts to degrade within five years and it’s probably totally worthless and 10 you cannot recycle them, they are contaminated, with heavy metals and basically have to put into a landfill and capped.
6.) let’s take a look at windfarms. Windfarm sounds like a great idea until you live next to one loud noises, flashing lights, flying pieces of fiberglass, and a large amount of dead birds that’s the legacy of a wind farm.
7.) let’s take a look at moving away from fossil fuels the crowd today who prays at the altar of Greta, wants us to shut down fossil fuels as soon as possible. So, let’s take a look at what would happen. The world we know it today would stop there would be no transportation. Your cell phone would disappear. They would be no batteries . Modern life as we know it would come to an end. Unless, of course, unicorns come and save us.

This is the legacy of the climate change advocate.
 

spARTacus

Well-known member
Ha. Depending on if you came up with and wrote all that yourself or if you cut and paste from elsewhere, one might think you're trying to graduate to become a word salad chef with the length of that post.

Couple of quick questions to start:

- To whom did you intend the open letter to be targeted? Like, who do you mean specifically (or explain generally if that's easier) when you refer to the addressees as "our true believers on climate"? Do you mean anyone that believes they think they know what the definition of the word climate means? The text of your letter refers to people here and there a few different times, about a certain crowd that is at the alter of Greta, uses some terms like "you" and "we" and "our" perhaps interchangeablly, and at the end it refers to the concept of "climate change advocates". Are those all meant to be same for what you wrote, same also as the intended addressee for the letter, the "believer" person or people? Just trying to better understand what you are trying to accomplish with the post, if specifically you are looking for a response, from whom, on all parts or just some parts, etc?
 
Last edited:

spARTacus

Well-known member
.. This is the legacy of the climate change advocate.
Personally, I don't think that what you posted was the legacy of anything, other then perhaps being the legacy of an example of the type of current thinking going on in the heads of the people who are similar to the person or people who came up with all of those words you posted.

Personally, I don't think the words posted reflect very well about the person/people who wrote it. I think the words reflect a fair bit of limited mindedness. Or at best/worse, I think the words reflect on an intent to try to spin, influence, propagate.

Hopefully (depending on what happens in the next several years), words like that will indeed be immortalized forever on the internet as historical record of how some people were thinking/destructing, examples for our future generations of things from our past history that we should make sure we try to learn lessons from for trying to avoid in the further future.
 

spARTacus

Well-known member
For your point 1, are you referring to any scientific predictions made in 1973 (you seem to be very precise about the year, in comparison to your point 2 for example) or a specific scientific study/paper/report? Or, are you referring to just a generalization understanding about what was predicted in 1973? Likewise, are you referring to a specific afterwards study/report that later went back and examined what was predicted in 1973 in comparison to what actually happened, or just a generalization of such? You refer to the science as part of how you start your point 1. So, I was wondering if you were actually expecting to approach it in specific reference to the actual science/paper/reports in question, or just otherwise summarizations or abstractions. As demonstrated by posts here in CB2 for example, sometimes there's a chance two different people or groups of people think they are looking at and reading or referring to the same thing when trying to discuss conclusions, when they are actually referring to completely different things. Would be nice, from a factual and scientific discussion approach perspective for the purpose of your letter and responses to it, if you could precisely clarify. Otherwise, you may find you accomplish differently than your intentions with the letter, or that you get responses in different directions or focuses from what you were wishing.
 
Last edited:

spARTacus

Well-known member
For your point 2, same questions basically as what I indicated for your point 1. You specifically mention the hockey stick so it's not wide open. However, the time period you refer to is an entire decade. Just wondering if you can clarify a bit more before some of your letter addresees otherwise use their discretion to pick and chooses a bit indiscriminately about who said what from all of what was said in the 80s (and later) with regards to the hockey stick.
 

spARTacus

Well-known member
For your point 3, so we should assume you feel there is something wrong with using the term climate change? Presumably, you do understand that if global warming results in changes to the earth's climate that have the impact of not just overall warming of the planet but also drier conditions for some areas and colder conditions for other areas (as examples), then technically the changes in the planet's climate as a result of the overall warming, is what some folks are discussing? Personally, I don't see anything nefarious from the term climate change, and I think it would be at least a bit (if not grossly) narrow minded to say that there was a change in terms of for the reasons you seem to be speculating about. However, all of that is probably going to just remain subjective opinion (unless there is something factual you are trying to refer to, I couldn't tell and I suspect the addressees of your letter won't be able to know either unless you are a bit more precise).
 

spARTacus

Well-known member
For your point 4, are "we" indeed saying storms are getting worse and worse because of the cost of repair, or is that just something you are stating on behalf of the rest of us? I would love to understand some more of the ground truth details you are using to state your conclusion. You sure "we" (depending on who you mean by "we") aren't saying storms are worse and worse based also on other factors like frequency, duration, strength, and in comparison to historicals? You also discuss about population changes for coastlines. Are you sure "we" have only been focusing on storm comparisons for around the coastlines as opposed to also for other areas of the planet (and for your assumption about hurricane damage cost equivalency in today's currency being "the" comparison variable being used)?
 
Last edited:

spARTacus

Well-known member
For your point 5, why do you seem to suggest people saying we need to move away from fossil fuels is the same as people saying we need to not use natural resources? Pretty sure most people view fossil fuels as only one set of natural resources. Do you have the same view or did you mean something different with what you wrote?
 

spARTacus

Well-known member
For the points you make about solar panels at your point 5, yes lots of that is currently true. Do you think those are forever going to remain true? Do you remember from history when we also previously did a real poor job at recycling and sustainability for lots of things? Do you think those things surrounding solar panels will not improve?
 

spARTacus

Well-known member
For your point 6 about wind farms, I presume you realize that you have mainly listed about some quite localized impact examples? Have you examined a wide swath of negative vs positive impact benefit analysis, studies, reports.. about wind turbines overall?
 
Last edited:

spARTacus

Well-known member
For your point 7, I presume you realize that folks who want to shut down fossil fuels use immediately are extremists? Is it safe to assume that you do know that the plans/desires to move away more and more from our dependency on fossil fuels, that those are not expected for it to happen overnight? Have you seen any policy that dictates for an overnight transition?
 

SteinwayTransitCorp

Well-known member
Let me make this simple since facts seem to get lost with you. Explain to me why we should spend trillions of dollars based on science from people who have been wrong constantly in the past just answer me just tell me why. And if you tell me, there’s a consensus, there was a consensus in 1970 that we’d all be frozen to death by now. There was a consensus in the 80s that the Earth would be on fire by now, and now there is a consensus that less than five years mankind is doomed. Please tell me why.
 

spARTacus

Well-known member
Let me make this simple since facts seem to get lost with you. Explain to me why we should spend trillions of dollars based on science from people who have been wrong constantly in the past just answer me just tell me why. And if you tell me, there’s a consensus, there was a consensus in 1970 that we’d all be frozen to death by now. There was a consensus in the 80s that the Earth would be on fire by now, and now there is a consensus that less than five years mankind is doomed. Please tell me why.
What people and what science (specifically) from the past and from the current was wrong or is wrong?
 

spARTacus

Well-known member
What people and what science (specifically) from the past and from the current was wrong or is wrong?
I think you also tried to make points about it in your letter, to which I also questioned you for specifics. If you don't have the specifics but only abstractions and summarizations, that's fine also. However, don't then state that you are basing everything you post on facts and science. State that you are just opinionating, like others. There's nothing wrong with that. People are allowed to have opinions.
 

spARTacus

Well-known member
.. there was a consensus in 1970 that we’d all be frozen to death by now. There was a consensus in the 80s that the Earth would be on fire by now, and now there is a consensus that less than five years mankind is doomed...
Feel free to specifically identify where you are getting those understandings from.
 

SteinwayTransitCorp

Well-known member
How simple must I make it…………1970 WRONG………1980 WRONG……. current prediction. If I was a betting man WRONG

So again as you always do ignore the question and answer with another question….LMFAO

its the NYPD crime stats all over again LMAO
 

spARTacus

Well-known member
...since facts seem to get lost with you...
Not sure I saw many facts in your letter. I think I saw lots of opinions. I gave you the chance to clarify what from your letter was fact vs opinion for certain things I pointed out. If you do not want to be precise, then you can't expect a different response. Well, you can expect a different response but you're not going to get a different response from me, because of how lots of what you posted seemed somewhat limited in not being open to the totality of the details of the situations at hand.
 
Last edited:

spARTacus

Well-known member
How simple must I make it…………1970 WRONG………1980 WRONG……. current prediction. If I was a betting man WRONG

So again as you always do ignore the question and answer with another question….LMFAO

its the NYPD crime stats all over again LMAO
There's a difference between trying to write a simple post and trying to write a logical post that can be factual.

By simply saying that 1970 was wrong and 1980 was wrong and today is wrong, that is not a factual post unless there is factual evidence to support such. What from about 1970 was wrong? What from about 1980 was wrong? Feel free to specifically identify (and provide the scientific references to backup your claims). Otherwise, stop saying you only post facts and science. You must realize by know that every time you state that you are a scientific and factual based person, you seem to also immediately contradict such?

Feel free to also scroll back and refresh yourself about how the earlier crime rate and dumpster fire discussions unfolded. It's all still there in the scroll back.
 

SteinwayTransitCorp

Well-known member
There's a difference between trying to write a simple post and trying to write a logical post that can be factual.

By simply saying that 1970 was wrong and 1980 was wrong and today is wrong, that is not a factual post unless there is factual evidence to support such. What from about 1970 was wrong? What from about 1980 was wrong? Feel free to specifically identify (and provide the scientific references to backup your claims). Otherwise, stop saying you only post facts and science. You must realize by know that every time you state that you are a scientific and factual based person, you seem to also immediately contradict such?

Feel free to also scroll back and refresh yourself about how the earlier crime rate and dumpster fire discussions unfolded. It's all still there in the scroll back.
. You can look up what I said but then you would be shocked.
do me a favor stay away, I will no longer engage with someone who cannot do basic research and cannot look at things with an open clear mind.
 

spARTacus

Well-known member
. You can look up what I said but then you would be shocked.
do me a favor stay away, I will no longer engage with someone who cannot do basic research and cannot look at things with an open clear mind.
Well I was wondering if you'd come around to this again, refusing to actually substantiate your claims/postings and then asking me to stop responding to your posts when I challenge you about it. Based on some things you indicated, I thought this time would perhaps be different.

Since I am not sure if this time it means you are going away, I'll take the opportunity for a quick summation.
- As always, you seem to just be opinionating and spewing propaganda, not willing to actually specifically substantiate for the claims you are making.
- For some reason, you think it's better to suggest that you are factual and scientific based, as opposed to just accepting like everyone else that people have different opinions and suggestions, that things can be discussed based on merit.
- You are expecting others to try to figure out by themselves what it is you might actually precisely be trying to indicate, and for them to also try to find the proof you suggest exists that backs up your claims, the claims that no one but yourself actually precisely understand.
- Worse yet, when folks take a summarization and abstraction response approach to your postingss (what else can they do given your lack of specifics), you spin that around and acuse them of not being factual and scientific based, the exact behaviour you are demonstratimg that is getting you into various arguments in the first place.
- You view yourself on some sort of "side", on some sort of mission I guess against the likes of "the climate change advocates" as you refer to them, and anyone not with you must be against you, and anyone who doesn't immediately understand and agree with what you are dictating, spewing, spinning, propogating, well those people must be against you and on the "opposing side"
- For some reason, you can't really fully comprehend all of the above and what is going on, but you are frustrated with lack of success for "your side", and starting to get more desperate
 
Top