Comments by "Jason Dashney" (@jasondashney) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
110
-
31
-
27
-
27
-
18
-
10
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
97% of climate scientists....don't want to lose their funding. Scientist after scientist who leaves academia, including Ivy League schools, talk about how corrupt their system was and how you got pushed out and defunded the minute your results didn't match the ones they wanted. To say the alarmists are afraid is nuts. And then you say "climate deniers" and thus perpetuating the notion that climate science is settled and that there's a common consensus and that their climate models are even remotely accurate or trustworthy given the amount of assumptions required. You can't talk about needed the scientific method and how criticism is good, then say "climate deniers". C'mon, you're better than this. Also, multiple people in that "97%" paper are on record saying they were misrepresented.
I'm amazed you did this as a topic and didn't mention the replicability crisis. If that doesn't convince people science is corrupted, then nothing will.
7:07. You're out of your damn mind. For 40 years I've heard prediction after prediction of doom and gloom and warming and melting and they simply aren't coming true. The catastrophe is always 10 years away. The same beachfront properties from 1980 are still highly sought after. They aren't underwater. And SO much climate data is cherry picked. Look up what happened before the dates you're given as the start of a timeline. Often those are very strategically picked to make sometime appear worse than it is. Picture a stock market chart where the stock goes from $150 to $100 to $150, then to $100. If you only show the $150 to $100 drop, the sky is falling. If you only show the $100 to $150, it looks like the sky is also falling, but if you look at it as a whole you'll see a repeating pattern within a range. Depending on the time you choose to start you can have the same data show things going up, down, or staying in a range.
8:43
Data? Again, climate models require SO many assumptions as to be almost meaningless. You can alter the assumptions in many different but equally plausible ways to get any result you want and still call it scientific data. Temperatures recorded in the sticks is not measurable decades later for comparison when the suburbs grow and those areas are now in the city where it's warmer due to all the human activity. There's a reason temps are growing over cities and not over the ocean where the readings have been more consistent because their locations and havent been altered. This is just one of many many ways data isn't gospel and always needs to be objectively scrutinized. To say the data is all correct is just dead wrong, especially since climate scientists themselves constantly come up with results that are different enough to be statistically significant.
I don't have a concrete opinion on climate change because both sides make very good points. The fact that one is undeniable corrupt gives me serious pause though. Nobody is making the big bucks by being a "denier" and in fact is destroys careers. They are incentivized to go along with the crowd so when they don't, I trust them more. That doesn't in and of itself mean they are correct, but boy does it help their case. I've been lied to way too many times by The Narrative, and people like world leaders and celebrities who pound the table about a climate crisis, yet don't act like it's a crisis in their real lives. Big yaughts, thousands of fights to COP meetings etc. When people start walking the walk, maybe I'll pay attention.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s interesting you read your comments, because as a Lehman, all I know is that scientists are apparently been shouting about doom and gloom for decades absolutely none of their predictions of come true. You can still buy the same beachfront in Miami, you can go outside with the old SPS 100, the polar bears aren’t about to go extinct, the glaciers weren’t gone by 2000 etc etc. I think climate science has been absolutely captured by ideology. You never ever ever hear about any of the positive aspects of climate change. That should be red flag number one. Only hearing about one side of something means you should take it with a bag of salt. You only hear about desertification, but they never talk about how the train line is moving north, and we actually have more trees now. They only talk about what animals are harmed, but never which ones are helped unless the ones that are helped or seen as a bad thing like a giant jellyfish swarm. We keep getting told that it’s literally an existential crisis. Obviously that’s complete nonsense. The fact that your career is basically over if you go against the narrative and should also be a gargantuan red flag. It’s easy to have a “consensus“ when everyone’s career is at stake. Until we have a modicum of sanity and balance brought into the discussion, I will continue to not have an opinion on it. Nobody wants to be objective about it on either side and it’s gross. As someone who is painfully objective, I’m absolutely disgusted by both sides. Even the term “consensus“ is complete nonsense, because if you ask even the most basic questions about what there is a consensus on, it breaks down quickly. The talk gets completely unscientific.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1