Post AArNiWF43ZrCPer8ds by blue@videos.lukesmith.xyz
(DIR) More posts by blue@videos.lukesmith.xyz
(DIR) Post #AAjTkaov22IFpvxRtg by luke@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-08-18T17:30:08.562Z
7 likes, 2 repeats
You’re not a soyence denier, anon, are you? I am a soyence-truster.(I recorded this video thinking that I was highly sympathetic to soyence-trusters, but I’ve actually realized in the past that the cult-like sycophancy that R*dditors have for institutionally-promoted ideology is so overwhelming and that they will nearly certainly get mad at this video anyway. If they do, let this be a lesson to anyone who dares to meet these people half way. This actually happened the last time I talked about global warming several years ago. I know better than this tactically, but I wanted to give a response to the email in the video anyway.)
(DIR) Post #AApN2YRcqurkXV8ia8 by anjum@mstdn.io
2021-08-29T19:52:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@luke Went into this video with an eyebrow raised, but actually found myself agreeing with most of your points. No one does act like they're responding to climate change; and all the rhetoric of individual action, UN summits, performative globohomo talking points, etc, is useless. Worse than useless, perhaps.I feel like at this point, it seems to be the future we chose. We chose this crazy world.
(DIR) Post #AAqfFZPwXV1necfVya by sp4ze@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-08-22T06:40:15.674Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
> trying to convince libertariansimagine taking meme-ideology seriously
(DIR) Post #AAr9iepmiDSRheCgSG by yellowarchitect@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-08-22T11:57:08.386Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
soyientists haven't had climate measuring apparatus before 1900, yet they think they can calculate and graph the past, millenias ago to the ice age. Insanity. Literal belief, 0 scientific method.Some guy below mentioned vivaldi's summer, and the glaciation of the 17th century. I also want to mention the year without summer. None of these are even referenced by "climate scientists"Is the climate changing? Sure. Is it natural for the climate to change? Unknown, past data is missing (it is thought by default that climate stays exactly the same, and this belief is unchallenged lmao)Is climate change caused by man? It is honestly unknown, too many variables.Will 4 degrees rising change the world radically? Nope.Will "muh climate" be used to push "eat the bugs"? Yes.
(DIR) Post #AArNfxClLwXbATYYTo by bailey@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-08-22T15:38:58.388Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sp4ze There are more ridiculous ideologies that the mainstream takes seriously.
(DIR) Post #AArNiWF43ZrCPer8ds by blue@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-08-21T14:36:31.282Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I don't care about climate change and would be more than happy for the human race to burn, starve and drown to death.
(DIR) Post #AArNiWzVGv0IjgaE1g by bailey@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-08-22T15:39:53.171Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@blue If you feel that way, why not start with yourself?
(DIR) Post #AArqHpe4hkZzRYBJ6O by z@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-08-22T19:32:08.527Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
I recommend talks by Richard Lindzen for a counter-narrative view of climate change, specifically Deconstructing Global Warming. Though he indeed seems to downplay the issue a bit, he raises great points and reveals how corrupt the entire field is. Roy Spencer also has some nice talks on it, as does some student of his whose name I forgot. Tim Palmer and Richard Muller are climate change non-skeptics who are worth listening to. Tim Palmer understands models, Richard Muller understands reconstructing past climate. The crucials points I have taken away are: 1) So far, apparently all or almost all models just assume a huge positive feedback effect by clouds, whereas there is at least some evidence that they act neutrally or even have a negative feedback effect. 2) Despits this, the climate panel pretends that such averaging these models reasonably reflects uncertainty and lack of understanding of the climate system. 3) Most presumably causal connections between global warming and climate change (such as extreme weather events) are still just plausible explanations, frequency and intensity of heat waves are maybe most certainly understood to be increased by greenhouse gas related radiative forcing. 4) Pretty much all soysence presented in the media is indeed just fake and gay as expected. 5) Michael E. Mann is (though knowledgable) the soyest of all and a low testosterone liar, just look at his malformed and effeminate face and physique.
(DIR) Post #AArrePKYoArYRbNljc by z@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-08-22T19:47:51.516Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
And to stress this, the thing about clouds is a huge thing. If they have a negative feedback effect on warming, there will be no warming at all or at most 1° C of warming by doubling carbon dioxide. Keep in mind that greenhouse radiative forcing (which is the increase of power per area of radiation on the troposphere caused by greenhouse gases) increases only approximately logarithmically with the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So it is actually not unlikely that it will turn out to be a massive nothingburger and nothing at all will happen, even if we raise the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere from 450 ppm to 1000 ppm, which would take us centuries at current speed. However, the entire point is that climate is still not well enough understood to make reliable predictions, so the danger of extreme global warming is still real, even though all Bayesian attempts at quantifying its probability seem (to me) to be still quite retarded. It is a danger of unknown certainty.
(DIR) Post #AAs2MGL2bMCkq39pHk by z@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-08-22T20:03:56.393Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(That nothing at all would happen is a slight exaggeration, but hardly anything would happen. With 2° C of warming over the coure of centuries, the prognosis would be more optimistic than any currently endorsed scenarios. I should also point out that it is only presumably that no warming would happen, just as pretty much all global warming predictions must be highly presumptious.)
(DIR) Post #AAsAiBS4FYcTgePLrU by chuck@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-08-22T21:21:10.692Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I clicked on this video expecting to disagree with you, but in fact I 100% agree, especially how academia tends to validate and self-reinforce itself (as someone with a BS within two fields of the social sciences, I've seen this type of behavior even more so in my area of study). My view is this: whether or not man-made climate change is true or not, humans would be wise to take precautions. The media, in particular, is incentivized to share stories with scary headlines with us because generates ad revenue. In my home state, they were seeing record breaking highs and everyone was saying "See! Global warming!". I'm someone who accepts that man-made climate change is likely a real possibility, I couldn't help but question this. The climate is a complex system and there's no way to know that these record breaking highs are directly a result of human activity.I also really wish climate change wasn't politically so polarized. I lived with a guy for a while who was hard right-wing conservative Christian and a big fan of Donald. Despite his political leanings, he was very much what I'd consider an environmentalist (road his bicycle everywhere, recycled what was "recyclable", and did his best to avoid consuming plastics and stuff that's generally more difficult to recycle). In fact, he was much more concerned about climate change and protecting the environment than the vast majority of liberals I've met.
(DIR) Post #AAsEtkc6G7p7k1s6Ge by linkedlist@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-08-22T22:24:31.586Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Bitcoin increases the demand for electricity and makes soystainable energy obsolete. Nuclear energy is the solution to this, which triggers the left. They want people to have low amounts of energy at high prices, to fund soylar energy companies and to destroy farmland with windmills. The goal is to make people dependent on public services, rather than private ownership.A good strategy for the GOP is to put up a candidate who is extremely pro-Nuclear and pro-Bitcoin next election cycle. Then we will see lots of boomers buying Bitcoin at $1million dollars a coin to epically pwn the anti-Bitcoin Democrats.
(DIR) Post #AAsEwhOGhOUkc7o8cC by linkedlist@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-08-22T22:24:46.009Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Bitcoin increases the demand for electricity and makes soystainable energy obsolete. Nuclear energy is the solution to this, which triggers the left. They want people to have low amounts of energy at high prices, to fund soylar energy companies and to destroy farmland with windmills. The goal is to make people dependent on public services, rather than private ownership.A good strategy for the GOP is to put up a candidate who is extremely pro-Nuclear and pro-Bitcoin next election cycle. Then we will see lots of boomers buying Bitcoin at $1million dollars a coin to epically pwn the anti-Bitcoin Democrats.
(DIR) Post #AAu3172mS4JgCX0zQm by blue@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-08-23T15:38:14.974Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bailey I can start by throwing you off a roof
(DIR) Post #AB0LFLAXhBESBfL5Ye by count_dracula@peertube.su
2021-08-26T03:37:36.209Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Honestly speaking your postion is better than 99% of deniers and activists combined. That's exactly how a sensible person should approach any topic. Questioning the popular authoritarian soyence is true science. While ofc there are many things that possibly predict the change is man made like increased rate of growth just after industrialization etc. The best thing to do in this situation is to assume worst case and prepare effecient solution like nuclear not soylar stuff unless we have better batteries to store the energy but activist won't promote nuclear because as you said its been politcized so much.
(DIR) Post #AB2RTUzdsQIIoG9PuK by mirkwood@mk.nixnet.social
2021-08-26T23:15:50.157Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@luke@videos.lukesmith.xyz Luke read the Unabomber manifesto and thought "Yeah sure, let's go pass this into law."
(DIR) Post #AB7Xiq3VQ9JRzaSIe8 by thinkofher@a.nom.pl
2021-08-28T21:04:44.214282Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@luke your description of academia funding and bureaucracy doesn't really work for most of the European country, which have public and free education delivered by the state. I can certainly say that most of the scientist from my country are pretty independent because of this fact and you know what? Most of them still agree to the so called: "scientific consensus on climate change".
(DIR) Post #ABAFsdcvGncKdlQN1c by twl@pleroma.8777.ch
2021-09-08T21:40:55.161672Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@luke the soy wojack is living in luke smith's head rent free
(DIR) Post #ABMbXDFOZzp5vwNnJQ by yang@peertube.co.uk
2021-08-20T13:47:15.314Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
Even if it's not real, the government's response and the annoyance by the npcs will be. Moving away from the cities is indeed the best answer for that. Covid showed that this world is crazy and more fragile than we think it is.
(DIR) Post #ABs3dXwwzYLr7W4k6K by HOLOGRAFIX@anticapitalist.party
2021-09-10T16:59:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@luke "When I was a kid" ... it wasn't CO2 that was "destroying climate" but CFCs, they would burn a hole in the OZONE layer (and the warming would enter through the hole). When is the last time you heard about the OZONE layer now, at the height of a "climate crisis"?
(DIR) Post #ABwM1FgL8eUrDjbCQy by z@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-09-11T17:59:17.153Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Regarding counter-narrative views on climate change, I can recommend talks (1) by Richard Lindzen (especially his talk on *Deconstructing Global Warming*) for a general outline of the flaws with climate change reasoning and modelling and the political corruption of the field, as well as some particular objections to the emerging feedback behaviour of cloud formation in climate models, (2) by Roy Spencer and John Christy for arguments based on satellite data against the validity of current climate models, and (3) by Judith Curry for a discussion of rarely-mentioned uncertainties with both measuring past climate and predicting future climate. Also worth listening to are on the other side Tim Palmer and Hadi Dowlatabadi, both being very pleasant and reasonable (also both being mathematical physicists), but there are many others. As it turns out, there are indeed several, valid potential issues with climate model based predictions, even concerning the very crude global mean surface temperature anomalies and the climate sensitivity numbers estimated from them, not to mention more specific predictions and “insights”; furthermore there’s a lack of discussion of the (resulting) uncertainties related to them. And so the media coverage of climate change søyence is, as expected, pretty much fake and gay. People claiming that “we know” the climate sensitivity to be “most likely 3° C” or “within the range 1,5–4,5° C with 95% confidence” are just retarded or pozzed, possibly both. Having said that, excessive climate change (with or without excessive global warming) due to past, present and future carbon emissions is still a real threat, it’s just a real threat of unknown certainty and you have to be either a sheep or a full-blown autistic Bayesian true-believer to say otherwise.
(DIR) Post #ABwNSIaL64V3kjhoTw by z@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-09-11T18:08:25.281Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Regarding counter-narrative views on climate change, I can recommend talks (1) by Richard Lindzen (especially his talk on *Deconstructing Global Warming*) for a general outline of the flaws with climate change reasoning and modelling and the political corruption of the field, as well as some particular objections to the emerging feedback behaviour of cloud formation in climate models, (2) by Roy Spencer and John Christy for arguments based on satellite data against the validity of current climate models, and (3) by Judith Curry for a discussion of rarely-mentioned uncertainties with both measuring past climate and predicting future climate. Also worth listening to are on the other side Tim Palmer and Hadi Dowlatabadi, both being very pleasant and reasonable (also both being mathematical physicists), but there are many others: There are indeed several, valid potential issues with climate models, most notably with cloud dynamics being poorly accounted for, and in particular the predictions based upon these models – even concerning the very crude quantities of global mean surface temperature anomalies and climate sensitivity numbers estimated from them (not to mention more specific predictions and “insights”); furthermore there’s a lack of discussion in the public of the (resulting) uncertainties related to them. And so the media coverage of climate change søyence is, as expected, pretty much fake and gay. People claiming that “we know” the climate sensitivity to be “most likely 3° C” or “within the range 1,5–4,5° C with 95% confidence” are just retarded or pozzed, possibly both. Having said that, excessive climate change (with or without excessive global warming) due to past, present and future carbon emissions is still a real threat, it’s just a real threat of unknown certainty and you have to be either a brainlet, a sheep or a full-blown autistic Bayesian true-believer to say otherwise.
(DIR) Post #AD1ZVGDO9VPPu8sB9M by free_brian_laundrie@thecool.tube
2021-10-12T12:07:01.048Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
How DARE You!Luke, check out a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007)