Montana kids in court

[Deleted member 20812]

Is $20 considered outrageously expensive in your neck of the woods, Ben?

Because for an elk tag that's considered too cheap on another thread...

Or pricing folks out, however you look at it. Even at $0.25 per day.

 

[BackofBeyond]

Hear me out Ben... God's own compost makers.

FIFY

 

[seeth07]

I don't know where this came from but work is really dumb tonight and my mind is thinking. I don't know at all if this would be true, spitballing. But wouldn't wearing a condom and not having a kid be the single best thing you can do to help with climate change? I imagine that a single kid from birth to death puts out way more bad stuff into the air than not mowing your lawn or replacing your light bulbs to led...

If that is true, I'm damn good at helping this climate change. Zero kids here

 

[Doublecluck]

One day I was bored so I started searching the internet for subjects that scientists agree on. I started with “99% of scientists agree” then lowered the number by 1% all the way to 70%. All of the searches brought back articles on climate change or global warming. Except one. 96%. I found that interesting.

 

[Ben Lamb]

One day I was bored so I started searching the internet for subjects that scientists agree on. I started with “99% of scientists agree” then lowered the number by 1% all the way to 70%. All of the searches brought back articles on climate change or global warming. Except one. 96%. I found that interesting.

I did the same on toothpaste. Turns out it's really just the same 1 dentist who hates the industrial oral health industry.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I did the same on toothpaste. Turns out it's really just the same 1 dentist who hates the industrial oral health industry.

Mike Simpson?

 

[Gr8bawana]

I think the reason many object to the approach to climate change is cognitive dissonance. All the major proponents seem to have several mansions, many on beachfront property, and fly 300K miles a year on private jets. Leo Di Caprio takes a helicopter to lunch from his massive yacht, yet wants us to eat bugs.

The latest "reach goals" for 2030 from the WEF is 0 meat, 0 private cars, 3 pieces of clothing per year, etc. And you can bet Sitka isn't on the list. And they all came on private jets. And the largest polluters of all get passes. And, of course, CBDC, and the first thing mentioned being limited in the "right to buy" category was ammunition.

All this while treating themselves to gourmet cuisine and the finest wine. The hippies in communes eating brown rice may have been crazy but at least they walked the walk.

I believe we should do all we can to fight pollution; pretty much with RFK on this; heck, I co-founded a chapter of the Sierra Club, but, like some other things, it was a different Sierra Club then. But rushing into wind and solar, without an overall net systems analysis of the cost/benefit and overall worldwide environmental assessment (not just NIMBY)
is folly. We have just seen the effects of rushing forward without adequate planning, leaving a generation of children damaged.

And RFK is also correct that major corporations have largely captured government agencies. Vivek and RDS comment on this as well. So all those government grant studies are going to show what the grantors want them to show, or, no more grants. There is no intellectual diversity at the university level, which leads to the 99%. So yeah, the ones you cancelled or didn't hire because they had diverse opinions lead to 99%.

99% also said the Covid vax was safe and effective, Covid didn't come from a lab, the laptop wasn't real, CIA agents, if not the actual CIA, didn't kill a sitting President, and the FBI investigated a sitting President for Russian collusion when they knew the opposition planted the story, yet no one spoke up.

So, somehow, we have to have a robust debate about all the issues around climate change before we start spraying stuff in the sky to cool the planet.

Pure hubris.

 

[DouglasR]

I don't know where this came from but work is really dumb tonight and my mind is thinking. I don't know at all if this would be true, spitballing. But wouldn't wearing a condom and not having a kid be the single best thing you can do to help with climate change? I imagine that a single kid from birth to death puts out way more bad stuff into the air than not mowing your lawn or replacing your light bulbs to led...

If that is true, I'm damn good at helping this climate change. Zero kids here

I think @statpro posted a graph about this recently and yeah it was like the only thing that made a difference.
But then im getting mixed feeling from Elon about it, so I don't really know what to believe.

#*^@#* everyone who pushed this climate change bs that contributed to Baja marine going bankrupt though.
took away our twin 502's and now all we've got left to go fast on is these freaking bicycles.

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

I don't know where this came from but work is really dumb tonight and my mind is thinking. I don't know at all if this would be true, spitballing. But wouldn't wearing a condom and not having a kid be the single best thing you can do to help with climate change? I imagine that a single kid from birth to death puts out way more bad stuff into the air than not mowing your lawn or replacing your light bulbs to led...

If that is true, I'm damn good at helping this climate change. Zero kids here

Yep, and @wllm has charted it not once, but twice!

Rinella article.. CUT AND PASTED

Also, social media is a crazy place. I have gram but I only check it like once a week and only post once a month at best. I'm just not crazy about using it. Haven't used FB in like five years. It's a lot to think about when you look into or study some of Rene Girard's work on mimetic desire and...

www.hunttalk.com

climate change convention

Hey I got two: No kids & wash clothes in cold water :) good luck to all the dog

www.hunttalk.com

 

[longbow51]

View attachment 283924

Figures don't lie, but liars can figure. Follow the money.

 

[mtmuley]

#*^@#* everyone who pushed this climate change bs that contributed to Baja marine going bankrupt though.
took away our twin 502's and now all we've got left to go fast on is these freaking bicycles.

I will burn fossil fuel in V8 truck engines until I die. If I had a boat, same. mtmuley

 

[DouglasR]

I will burn fossil fuel in V8 truck engines until I die. If I had a boat, same. mtmuley

it was our birth right.

 

[mtmuley]

it was our birth right.

Nope. That has nothing to do with it. Nor does it have anything to do with killing mule deer on Thanksgiving in Montana. Total stupid cop-out explanation. mtmuley

 

[Sytes]

Student Climate Change v Montana State (Constitutionality Q)

Julia Olson, Environmental Attorney and Founder of "Our Children’s Trust" has collected her Climate Change children for her next endeavor. Her previous - Oregon Climate Change actions: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-change-lawsuit-teens-oregon_n_6490036 And her next, "Our Children’s...

www.hunttalk.com

Note: "Children" used by the Oregon based environmental attorney.

 

[antlerradar]

Banana, as to your you're the saddest guy on HT. Look for the joy in life. And, of course, "publish or perish" has, unfortunately, long been the narrative. And the only narratives which get published are those which support the desired thesis, rather than accept or reject the null hypothesis, which is honest science. Did you see how quickly Lancet took down the report of vaccine injuries? If science and medicine are ever to regain their credence (and I am vested in both worlds), there must be healthy debate. And you know full well if you look back thousands of years there are cycles of warming and cooling. To deny that is to cherry-pick data, which leads to erroneous conclusions.

I've been doing research since I was 17 years old, at a summer program for high school juniors at Clemson (chasing Sputnik), and really never stopped.

I've had companies try to get me to exclude data which didn't agree with their expected outcomes, to which my response was a giant FU. I didn't need their money to make a good living, research was just interesting to me. If you haven't been in this situation, maybe you don't understand. For university professors, they have no options; if they could get a job in private making good money, they likely would, but failing that, they have to toe the line.

Interestingly, when I was in research in organic chemistry, a long time ago, science was scrupulous; either the process worked or it didn't, and the null hypothesis was accepted, and the researcher was not penalized for negative outcomes which didn't support the hypothesis.

So, enough of the 99%, and "we measure science". How many research studies have you conducted? How much do you know about how exclusions are conducted; makes a huge difference in outcomes. How about narrowing timelines to make small changes look huge?

So, if you are a major researcher, peace on. Otherwise, you know not of what you speak.

Probably shouldn't have had that second G&T

And in my defenseView attachment 284039View attachment 284039

To heck with the politics. I just want a dinner invite. Looks delicious

 

[Trap]

I really don't know where to start. So many claims being made without any links.

However, here is one on bias in regard to climate science. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00582-z
And here's the conclusion, though the entire thing is worth a read.

The use of selected ‘pronouncing’ lexis like bias, dogma and peer review by contrarian actors to negotiate their intersubjective positioning within the blogosphere reveals a mismatch between some of their avowed intentions and their actual authorial voices as bloggers. As discussed in section “Investigating bloggers’ stances: Data and conceptual framework”, CSBC-CON bloggers present themselves as endowed with the cultural competence required to master interactional and contributory expertise in the field of climate science; accordingly, they claim to be driven by the need to assess evidence for and against climate change dispassionately, as a way to uphold the integrity of the climate science, and purport to provide a non-partisan and non-political critique of relevant developments. However, the analysis of this subcorpus shows that, in positioning themselves with respect to the acceptors’ stance, contrarian bloggers resort to characterizing mainstream scientific consensus precisely in terms of the latter’s alignment with institutional policies, corporate interests or left-wing agendas at odds with national interests. As shown by the analysis, the inherent biases of the ‘consensus science’, that contrarian bloggers frame as value-driven flaws, are elevated to the category of church dogma in CSBC-CON discourses. By purportedly exposing the centrality of non-epistemic values in consensus climate science, CSBC-CON bloggers’ stance becomes imbued with political overtones, which facilitates the derivation and communication of their sceptic perspective. On the surface, contrarian bloggers’ pledge to uphold process legitimacy would appear to be somewhat more congruous with their stance on the peer review system. As shown in section “Analysing CSBC bloggers’ construction of intersubjectivity: Bias, dogma, peer review”, the CSBC-CON authorial voice questions the reliability of peer reviews insofar as these are conducted exclusively by core experts (without the involvement of their contributory or interactional counterparts) influenced by pervasive institutional and corporate vested interests. Ultimately, however, contrarian bloggers do not single out any specific procedural flaw of the evaluation process, opting instead to decry the unacceptable politicization of consensus science—where values, they argue, shape the research process from its very early stages.

By contrast, the biases identified by CSBC-ACC bloggers refer primarily to the consequences of ill-informed conceptual or methodological decisions, and of skewed calibration and measurements while gathering evidence. In other words, the analysis shows that acceptor bloggers are normally bound by values used in a direct role (Douglas, 2009), i.e. they are more likely to mobilize epistemic values circumscribed by the methodological norms of the certified scientific community. This understanding of scientific biases as relatively unintentional consequences of non-partisan exercises of agency is consistent with the complete absence of references to climate science dogma in the Union of Concerned Scientists blog. Significantly, it also brings into sharp relief the fact that occurrences of this lexical item in Desmog UK are confined to statements by public figures in the sceptic camp, that are quoted verbatim to expose their prejudiced nature. The coherence of the CSBC-ACC’s authorial voice is reinforced through their characterization of peer reviews as gate-keeping instruments underpinned by established epistemic frameworks—where values are deployed in a direct role—and forms of expertise. The analysis shows how, on occasions, core experts adopt a more adversarial stance in their blog posts that mobilizes non-epistemic values to discredit contrarian voices.

Although their readership in absolute terms is often small, climate change blogs attract a relatively high number of influential readers, including journalists, who facilitate the penetration of bloggers’ views and their policy disputes into mainstream reporting and public discourse (Farrell and Drezner, 2008). This study has advocated the need to compile and interrogate corpora consisting of climate blogs, an increasingly influential genre complementing previous research on scientific controversy as reported in traditional media. The findings outlined here reveal the value-laden character of contrarian views, and show how acceptor bloggers attempt to construct an authorial voice driven by ‘the science’, while drawing on dialogically expansive strategies to foreground their opponents’ prejudiced voices for strategic reasons. This relatively small corpus therefore confirms that, in addition to prompting reflection on the use of knowledge in various forms of public decision-making, both contrarian and acceptor bloggers seek to manage public perceptions of climate change using different approaches. More work is needed to establish how other types of evaluative lexis influence the bloggers’ engagement with alternative stances, and whether these are consistent with the discourses that this paper has reported on. Exploring the similarities and differences between the authorial voices constructed in blog posts and in the wider range of online genres included in the Genealogies of Knowledge Internet corpus would yield further insight into the negotiation of intersubjectivity and expertise in an increasingly multivoiced debate.

He’s using the age old tactic of “baffling with bullshit” The belief if I use enough BiG words people will be so confused, they will have to believe me. A lot of your links are the same that I see the mainstream media and climate alarmists constantly regurgitate. It’s part of the narrative. I don’t know if global warming-wait-I mean climate change. (caused by human behavior) is a proven fact. It might be a proven fact eventually. I think we would be wise to at least question it before trying to totally transform society and spending additional trillions in tax dollars. We have NO IDEA what the long term consequences of renewables will be. Research what solar farms are doing to winter range and migration corridors. Check out some of the lithium mining operations. Some of those mines in Chile etc make the Berkeley pit look like a gopher hole. What about the electrical grid? California has rolling brown outs now, when too many people run the air conditioner lol. How is that going to work with millions of new electric vehicles plugged in every day. Why haven’t we explored improvements in hydroelectric power? We have the ability with today’s technology to create hydroelectric without damming the entire river. What’s more reliable and inexpensive than hydroelectric? and what’s more renewable than the river? I know the problems with damming an entire river but we don’t have to do that anymore. Wind is totally unpredictable, not reliable and apparently is killing birds. I don’t think blindly accepting climate change and parroting the narrative and their studies is wise. Do we really understand what we are jumping into? Renewables could have consequences we don’t understand. And will anything we do matter if we can’t get china and the rest of the world involved?

 

[Deleted member 18333]

The kids won.

MSN

 

[Ben Lamb]

The kids won.

MSN

So did the consultants for both sides. So much money to made in not solving this problem.

And if we're going to talk about money influencing science, then let's paint the picture wholly. Just like when the tobacco industry funded "science" that said a pack & a half a day is what the Dr. ordered, the oil industry has spent millions to protect their billions in denying their role in climate change.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

So did the consultants for both sides. So much money to made in not solving this problem.

And if we're going to talk about money influencing science, then let's paint the picture wholly. Just like when the tobacco industry funded "science" that said a pack & a half a day is what the Dr. ordered, the oil industry has spent millions to protect their billions in denying their role in climate change.

So much money to be made in perpetuating the crisis.

Personally, I think the entire grounds for the case was foolish. But these kids used the system fair and square so go on them. I am 100% confident that this ruling will not improve the mental anguish they suffer from FF projects in MT but I suspect the money they should make from their new found celebrity will help.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So much money to be made in perpetuating the crisis.

Personally, I think the entire grounds for the case was foolish. But these kids used the system fair and square so go on them. I am 100% confident that this ruling will not improve the mental anguish they suffer from FF projects in MT but I suspect the money they should make from their new found celebrity will help.

I don't know what they're seeking for damages but most of it would be sucked up by the attorney's.

And this was the state's case to lose, quite frankly. Due to some of the really stupid legislation that passed in 23 relative to MEPA & Climate, even I could have won these cases, and I'm not a lawyer.

The 2025 legislative session will be about how to eliminate MEPA and the public's right to participate in gov't.