I understand that the rim should be done according to the yellow guideline. But I need to make a beautiful replica of a real rim based on the reference and because of this, following the reference I got such a flange. But my mistake is rather that I chose the wrong spoke size. Ill try to fix it, but it's quite a complicated task to make a rim following a reference without seeing the spoke on the diagram.
Mod published.
Changes:
Changed dashboard to more bright colors and new icons.
Removed all errors in mesh.
Fixed some mappings.
Changed rims to fit in limits.
Changed some mappings, added more dark points (on steering wheel and dashboard)
Changed engine sound.
Added muffler animation.
Fixed lod2 skin mapping.
Changes:
Changed dashboard to more bright colors and new icons.
Removed all errors in mesh.
Fixed some mappings.
Changed rims to fit in limits.
Changed some mappings, added more dark points (on steering wheel and dashboard)
Changed engine sound.
Added muffler animation.
Fixed lod2 skin mapping.
Yeah, I was just been dumb and forgot to check the second config where the polygon limit was exceeded
This was the first time for me so I didn't understand what happened.Oh sorry, completely forgot about that
Just fixed all of that
i mean i fixed it, and updated it almost 2 hours ago, but somereason LFS dont have it...and new version not published
This is my mod and I have already explained my position on this matter. As for the spokes, it's a bit surprising to me to see messages about "hacks", when the LFS official discord channel was calmly discussing instructions from draggo on how to do it and there were mod reviewers there as well. And I thought it was common practice to do, just dont need to be an moron and make spokes over 10k and veh file over 2mb. And because it turns out to be such a big deal seeing this thread yesterday I started changing the spokes and rim to hit the limits. Its your game and your rules.
And I uploaded it to the site today with other fixes over an hour ago, but for some reason the LFS still has the old version. And new version is not published
Because the rims in this mod were made before the rim editor was updated, which allowed making details like flanges and bead and what I was talking about earlier. And because of this, I had to use the spoke editor in those days..
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
I have been working as an industrial designer for over 10 years, (primarily modeling) I model all my mods myself. I hope this makes you aware that I know what I'm talking about.
Even in the mobile gaming industry, racing games the limits are higher than 11k tris for car. Unless the graphics are stylized to low poly. In modern PC simracing games LFS has the smallest amount of polys right now.
I wouldn't say that, my slogan is beauty in the details. The more details, the more realistic the mod looks. I can working with a 65.5k limit on a car (But sometimes I wish there was more). But 1600 for spokes, that's too low for many cases. Yes, if your spokes are 5-6 relatively straight sticks, there's nothing complicated here. (and even then we won't see modeled nuts and air valve there...and the constant use of hard edges with is not good for realism) but if the spokes are more complicated, that's where it gets tricky and there's a loss of details to get to the limits. And I have no idea what to do if you have to make rims with complex designs like BBS. You'll have to make a lot of sacrifices in the form of giving up some details like pattern in middle and nuts.
In my mod, I had to remove the nuts and add them as hub obj and use a hard edges. Hard Edges are bad because they literally don't exist in reality, which is why it often looks weird. There is no object in real world that converges towards the edge with a 90 degree surface, everything has a chamfer. For example, on the picture with the real rim on which I used as a reference clearly visible chamfer on the spoke, which has a specific shine that makes this rim even more beautiful, this shine is impossible in LFS with hard edges (with different color groups). But it is possible with a chamfer (bevel). Also in blender hard edges should be "looped" that it would be correctly transferred to the LFS editor as it is converted to color groups and that makes it even harder to use. (in blender shading it is not necessary to loop the hard edge to see the result) Instead, I prefer to use the bevel with additional edges wherever possible..But the limitation on spokes makes this almost impossible. And that's not even taking into account other rims with complex designs.
EDIT: I made a version my spokes with nuts and bevels in necessary places and I got 3.7k..
Even in the mobile gaming industry, racing games the limits are higher than 11k tris for car. Unless the graphics are stylized to low poly. In modern PC simracing games LFS has the smallest amount of polys right now.
I wouldn't say that, my slogan is beauty in the details. The more details, the more realistic the mod looks. I can working with a 65.5k limit on a car (But sometimes I wish there was more). But 1600 for spokes, that's too low for many cases. Yes, if your spokes are 5-6 relatively straight sticks, there's nothing complicated here. (and even then we won't see modeled nuts and air valve there...and the constant use of hard edges with is not good for realism) but if the spokes are more complicated, that's where it gets tricky and there's a loss of details to get to the limits. And I have no idea what to do if you have to make rims with complex designs like BBS. You'll have to make a lot of sacrifices in the form of giving up some details like pattern in middle and nuts.
In my mod, I had to remove the nuts and add them as hub obj and use a hard edges. Hard Edges are bad because they literally don't exist in reality, which is why it often looks weird. There is no object in real world that converges towards the edge with a 90 degree surface, everything has a chamfer. For example, on the picture with the real rim on which I used as a reference clearly visible chamfer on the spoke, which has a specific shine that makes this rim even more beautiful, this shine is impossible in LFS with hard edges (with different color groups). But it is possible with a chamfer (bevel). Also in blender hard edges should be "looped" that it would be correctly transferred to the LFS editor as it is converted to color groups and that makes it even harder to use. (in blender shading it is not necessary to loop the hard edge to see the result) Instead, I prefer to use the bevel with additional edges wherever possible..But the limitation on spokes makes this almost impossible. And that's not even taking into account other rims with complex designs.
EDIT: I made a version my spokes with nuts and bevels in necessary places and I got 3.7k..
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
no/53/Aleksandr_124rus
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Some updates:
Added muffler animation
Lights split into side lights/inds/fogs
Added new lights icons in dashboard
Added Safety car lightbar in second configuration
Added lod2
Added muffler animation
Lights split into side lights/inds/fogs
Added new lights icons in dashboard
Added Safety car lightbar in second configuration
Added lod2
53/Aleksandr_124rus/Alexey Grigorev/Russia/Russian Drift Club
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Bell notifications (suggestion posted off topic in network outage thread)
I have suggestion to add bell notifications for replies in threads. I've written about this before and I don't know if I've either been unnoticed or ignored. It can be done to add as a "reply" button instead of a "quote" button. (Or don't change it) This button will also do everything the same, including a quote in the answer, but it will also give a bell notification so that it is immediately visible on the site and the person understands that he received a response. It would also be convenient that you could click on the notification in the bell, which will take you to the desired forum thread. It will work just like on all other modern sites and it will be immediately clear to everyone.
For me, this is an obvious feature. I often came across a situation where I did not know what was answered on the forum, or when I answered someone and they did not answer me for months because they did not know that they had received an answer. I understand that there is a subscription tab on the site for this, but is convinietnt to avoid reading posts that don't relate to me. And I already have dozens of threads there and I just don’t want to press this button, moreover, many simply don’t know how it works and don’t use this function.
For me, this is an obvious feature. I often came across a situation where I did not know what was answered on the forum, or when I answered someone and they did not answer me for months because they did not know that they had received an answer. I understand that there is a subscription tab on the site for this, but is convinietnt to avoid reading posts that don't relate to me. And I already have dozens of threads there and I just don’t want to press this button, moreover, many simply don’t know how it works and don’t use this function.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
I'm not sure if you know, but you can go to leagues and create your own league there so that it can be seen by everyone in the main menu of the game.
This looks like sarcasm to me, but I'll answer seriously. I make threads on topics of interest for the sake of making interesting discourse as I say it at the beginning of the threads and getting different opinions and arguments.. And this person, follows me around the threads, says nothing on topics, and just provokes me on something and reports me to the Scawen like this. I don't have anything to make excuses for. He's been acting this way since I trolled him a little bit on one social networking site for stupid behavior, he even left the chat group. And he's so offended that he's acting out here. I mean..behavior worthy of him.Like I said earlier I don't want to talk to him because it doesn't make sense.
Why? Your point was valid in the last thread, but compared to ethical issues, this thread has done quite well, at least there is a semblance of discussion. I got some new information, and partly changed my position, and there is nothing surprising in the fact that other people do not want to listen to others and accept other arguments and do not understand the topics on which they confidently speak, I am already used to it. And in the last thread, no one even managed to speak calmly on the subject.
What?
So when I say there is global warming and it's probably man-made and we need to fight the emissions of the large companies that means I'm a "climate change denier".... This is how it usually happens with narrow-minded people, instead of treating a unfamiliar person with an open mind, they just put labels that will be convenient for them that would not strain their head much.
Can you give an example of at least one my "far-fetched theses opposed to scientific realities" or are you talking bullshit. Although, it doesn't matter, it's not the first time.
You haven't said a word about the laws of logic. Another lie or not knowing, first is not surprising, I've obviously forgotten who I'm talking to. When a sentences is laced with lies, it's hard to demand a void of rhetorical tricks.
And if its second option then not knowing what the laws of logic are is another indication of lack of knowledge of philosophy. I don't even know what's better.
Superiority complex
Oh, so you're also a psychologist. What a talented man. Well, if so let's describe to me a psych profile based on forum posts, it will at least be fun to read.From time to time the pendulum of views in the world swings from left to right, and the extreme positions of this pendulum always bring destabilization and devastation. Both systems on extreme degree showed their failure to in the 20th century. I'm all in favor of balance. Now the pendulum of views in the world has swung to the left, and this creates a huge number of talking heads who can repeat mainstream, but cannot think.
When I say that I'm in favor fighting emissions from large companies because is a good tool for demonopolization, is that a far-right thesis? When I'm in favor of renewable energy, is that a far-right thesis? When I stand for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, is that a far-right thesis? When I stand for the equality of all before the law is far-right thesis? I don't consider myself right or left because that is an outdated belief system. I'm for what works best.
Anything that doesn't fit into your imaginary world about your interlocutor is simply ignored and a convenient image is painted that is easy to argue with.... this level of discourse is pathetic.
I don't even know how to respond to this caricatured example of Sharikov, who attributes everything bad to you to make himself seem good. I will not expose you for every lie you write about me, I am already very tired of sinking to your level. I have promised too often not to have dialog with you anymore, and now I remember the reason why. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation here. And that's a shame.
I love it when left-liberals threaten others with blocking or cancellation for their opinions and, in the same sentence, accuse others of propaganda. How I love this Western society with freedom of speech and common sense.
I'm a supporter of free speech, and I wouldn't want you or anyone else here to be blocked. But I wonder what would happen to you and with your people if they voice their views publicly and people like you came to power in your country.
Who are "climate deniers"? Do they deny the existence of climate? And where are they? Uh...are they in the same room with you? And that includes even if you mean climate change deniers. Because I haven't seen them posting in this thread.
Well this at least looks like a meaningful discussion, although I certainly don't expect any objectivity from you. Because you obviously don't need to analyze any new information, you have one goal, you need to prove that "World Climate Declaration completely stupid".
But like I said, I'm not interested in defending someone else's words. So I'll just go through your thesis.
That's interesting, and how many climate scientists are there, if there are so few can you list them all?
And who said that? You made up a thesis and you debunked it yourself. It happens again and again. Classic example of a straw man arument.
I said:
Scientists and professionals. And this is written in the declaration itself.
You make up a thesis for your opponents, and break it down yourself, I understand that you find it more convenient to do this than to argue with the actual theses of your interlocutors. But does it bring you pleasure instead of having a real discussion with your interlocutor and his theses?
What is sophism? And how to distinguish it from argument? A sophism is a fallacious reasoning, an incorrect argument based on a deliberate, conscious violation of the rules of logic. If it is a sophism, then demonstrate what rules of logic this sophism violates. That's what I did with the Scawen analogy. I didn't just demonstrate the rule it violates, but I showed in detail how it violates it. Are you capable of this?
I do not exclude that this declaration is a counter-propaganda to the climate change propaganda. I am not you to consider all sources that I like automythically true and those that I don't like false. I don't know that, and I don't have the time and desire to check these leaked documents, because they could also be fake and like I said, I'm not that interested in this topic. But it is interesting that neither you nor the western media are doing the same about the hot topic of global warming. You're just assuming it's all true, and all I'm doing is encouraging you to think critically about any source and question it.
And it’s interesting how you selectively decided to break down the theses of the declaration... So do you agree with the others? What about the bias and politicization of this topic. And articles on this topic that I wrote about?
Yes, and as I said, such regulations can serve as a good demonapolisation tool.
Yes, that's my point
Of course, the state will always be a corrupt tool and no matter for what, enrichment, monopoly for violence, power in itself. This is the nature of the state and because the state needs minarchical mechanisms. The best state is a weak state, in terms of the number of institutions, and regulations. In the US, decentralisation, the first two amendments, the system of checks and balances, and the two-term president law are partly responsible for this. But even there, it's not enough. And I'm not even talking about other countries.
Technically, moving the production infrastructure to China reduces emissions in the UK, and for the citizens of your country it may be important, in terms of pollution, most of it settling in the country of its production. But of course, globally it does not matter where the emissions are produced. People in China breathe harmful smog even more than in Russia. And it's the most polluting country in the world. I remember how the western media was disturbed during the 2008 Beijing Olympics noticed it as if for the first time. But people live under these conditions every day.
And again if you are talking about the production of electric cars, then in that case any production requires the emissions necessary for that production. Electric cars are not unique here.
As a car enthusiast, I don't like electric cars. But as a pedestrian, I am interested in increasing the percentage of electric cars of all cars so that I can breathe cleaner air in cities. Cars still produce quite a lot of exhaust gases in which nitrogen oxides and other toxic substances are the most dangerous.
I'm not sure I fully understand you. Can you give examples of both the first and the second case you are talking about?
I don't care what you gonna buy. If you think it has something to do with you, then It's clearly related self esteem issues. I didn't talk to you because it doesn't make sense, since you are incapable of maintaining a meaningful discussion on any issue that we've been discussing.
And if you don't have anything meaningful to say, don't post here. Or go again report to Sсawen, like he's got nothing better to do. At least that's what you're good at.
I'm not sure you understand what I'm talking about, I'm quoting a declaration from over 1600 scientists including two Nobel laureates and professionals that said - There is no climate emergency. Part of text with bold text headings, there are links there and you can see it for yourself. That's why the quotation marks were there. But you started arguing with it as if it were my quotes. But they're not. Although I did say the same things before, but it was not literally the same words.
I don't want to defend someone else's words, so I will proceed from my own positions. And since we have started this argument, I hope it will be without rhetorical tricks and stay within the laws of logic.
Is analogy a good argument for you?
Let's take a look. Analogy is the comparison of any two things (A, B) by one or more properties. Does it follow that thing A is similar to thing B? No. Does it follow that all the properties of thing A are the same as thing B? No. Let's look at an example. There's an ass and a finger, you can compare them too. The ass and the finger have skin, sweat cells, muscle tissue, etc. Does that mean you can shit out of your finger? No. Does that mean you can grow nails on your ass? No.
Same thing with a fat person. Although it's even a double analogy. Fat person is compared to nature and humans and CO2 is compared to food. There are so many things wrong here, I don't even know where to start. First of all, by what property are we comparing these objects? A fat person consumes food. And nature and humans emits carbon dioxide. There's no common property. What common properties do carbon dioxide and food have in common? I've lost the point...Even if this analogy worked and there were common properties, it doesn't mean that a fat person is nature and people, and food is carbon dioxide, in a huge number of ways. Then what does the analogy prove? Nothing.
Analogy is a direct violation of the law of identity. If we're talking about subject A and its properties. We should be talking about subject A and its properties. And not substitute it for something else. Instead, it is better to use a regular thesis statement.
The analogy is also bad because it's not clear what you're trying to say.
Why did you make that analogy? To show what? That nature and humans will die if they emit more carbon dioxide? How?
I don't know how much percent plants need more carbon dioxide for better growth because I'm not an expert, but you are now literally arguing with the thesis of the climate scientists who signed this declaration. And I know that plants grow better in greenhouses than out of them, although there temperature and humidity are probably more important.
I have attached two graphs, the increase in carbon dioxide, and the number of deaths associated with climate change. Let's look at the consequences together.
All right, let's see. In January this year -73°C was recorded in Evenki village. Just a week ago they were talking about record frosts -42°C in the Krasnoyarsk region. Record frosts for the last 100 years have been recorded in the regions of Western Siberia. The thermometer dropped to minus -49°C. Due to the cold weather in Siberia, there was an increase in frostbite, as well as flight delays, road accidents and canceled bus flights.
But if we are serious, local temperature records mean not much, because they are formed mainly by cyclones and anticyclones, which are formed by ocean currents. You have to look at temperature changes on average to understand the real dynamics of warming, and it is there, I did not deny it. Over the last 100 years, the temperature has increased by 1.1 degrees.
Unfortunately, in regulated countries, the economy is run by politics and politics does not reflect reality. In unregulated countries, the economy is run by the rules of the market. And I'm not saying that's always a good thing. As we have already said in this thread, direct pollution is bad and it should be fought first and foremost.
You misunderstand this, I made no such direct statements. Rather, I asked questions about these topics. All I have done in this thread is ask for evidence that there will be some catastrophic threat to humanity. I see no existential threat to humanity from global warming. And I've explained my position. As I see it, in the worst unlikely scenario, some people will be forced to move off the coasts to inland. Which, of course, is something to avoid. But I am told that catostrafic consequences are already inevitable, it is amazing to me how people know what will happen in the future. I can understand the nature of the existential threat from global cooling because almost all plants and animals will die out and there will be no sources of food and electricity. But I cannot understand the existential threat of global warming. Perhaps I am wrong and an exostential threat to humanity exists, all I ask is that you demonstrate the mechanism of its emergence.
I don't want to defend someone else's words, so I will proceed from my own positions. And since we have started this argument, I hope it will be without rhetorical tricks and stay within the laws of logic.
Is analogy a good argument for you?
Let's take a look. Analogy is the comparison of any two things (A, B) by one or more properties. Does it follow that thing A is similar to thing B? No. Does it follow that all the properties of thing A are the same as thing B? No. Let's look at an example. There's an ass and a finger, you can compare them too. The ass and the finger have skin, sweat cells, muscle tissue, etc. Does that mean you can shit out of your finger? No. Does that mean you can grow nails on your ass? No.
Same thing with a fat person. Although it's even a double analogy. Fat person is compared to nature and humans and CO2 is compared to food. There are so many things wrong here, I don't even know where to start. First of all, by what property are we comparing these objects? A fat person consumes food. And nature and humans emits carbon dioxide. There's no common property. What common properties do carbon dioxide and food have in common? I've lost the point...Even if this analogy worked and there were common properties, it doesn't mean that a fat person is nature and people, and food is carbon dioxide, in a huge number of ways. Then what does the analogy prove? Nothing.
Analogy is a direct violation of the law of identity. If we're talking about subject A and its properties. We should be talking about subject A and its properties. And not substitute it for something else. Instead, it is better to use a regular thesis statement.
The analogy is also bad because it's not clear what you're trying to say.
Why did you make that analogy? To show what? That nature and humans will die if they emit more carbon dioxide? How?
I don't know how much percent plants need more carbon dioxide for better growth because I'm not an expert, but you are now literally arguing with the thesis of the climate scientists who signed this declaration. And I know that plants grow better in greenhouses than out of them, although there temperature and humidity are probably more important.
I have attached two graphs, the increase in carbon dioxide, and the number of deaths associated with climate change. Let's look at the consequences together.
All right, let's see. In January this year -73°C was recorded in Evenki village. Just a week ago they were talking about record frosts -42°C in the Krasnoyarsk region. Record frosts for the last 100 years have been recorded in the regions of Western Siberia. The thermometer dropped to minus -49°C. Due to the cold weather in Siberia, there was an increase in frostbite, as well as flight delays, road accidents and canceled bus flights.
But if we are serious, local temperature records mean not much, because they are formed mainly by cyclones and anticyclones, which are formed by ocean currents. You have to look at temperature changes on average to understand the real dynamics of warming, and it is there, I did not deny it. Over the last 100 years, the temperature has increased by 1.1 degrees.
Unfortunately, in regulated countries, the economy is run by politics and politics does not reflect reality. In unregulated countries, the economy is run by the rules of the market. And I'm not saying that's always a good thing. As we have already said in this thread, direct pollution is bad and it should be fought first and foremost.
You misunderstand this, I made no such direct statements. Rather, I asked questions about these topics. All I have done in this thread is ask for evidence that there will be some catastrophic threat to humanity. I see no existential threat to humanity from global warming. And I've explained my position. As I see it, in the worst unlikely scenario, some people will be forced to move off the coasts to inland. Which, of course, is something to avoid. But I am told that catostrafic consequences are already inevitable, it is amazing to me how people know what will happen in the future. I can understand the nature of the existential threat from global cooling because almost all plants and animals will die out and there will be no sources of food and electricity. But I cannot understand the existential threat of global warming. Perhaps I am wrong and an exostential threat to humanity exists, all I ask is that you demonstrate the mechanism of its emergence.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
1-2. Well, it doesn't have to be that way. Large companies have super profits and can cover production costs with these profits, but if a large company does not have super profits, it can really affect the cost of goods. Why is that a bad thing? I'm only talking about large companies. If the cost of their goods goes up, their competitors have a better chance of capturing more of the market at a lower price. It's a tool for demonopolization of large companies.
3. Again, it is difficult for me to answer how effective these systems are in reducing emissions, and I am not an expert in this field. But if they are effective, especially in terms of pollution, that's good enough for me.
4. Because this mixing of CO2 and pollution literally happens during production. It is almost never the case that pure CO2 is the emission, and if it is, I have no problem with it. I have a feeling that we are too much coming from the contexts of our own countries so we don't understand each other. I think UK has no problem with pollution compared to Russia so much so that the issue of microplastics is of paramount importance to you. We're not at that level yet. People in many Russian cities have to breathe smog from industrial emissions, toxic waste is poured into rivers, from which people in neighboring communities then draw water. But unfortunately the system in Russia is set up in such a way that you as a company can do what you want as long as it is not visible from the Kremlin, and the topic of fighting climate change is often raised in the Kremlin, and in this regard there are laws to limit emissions, so companies are inspected and checked not only for CO2 emissions but also for other harmful emissions. However, in Russia there are other nuances such as widespread corruption, and these measures may not have a result, but this is another conversation.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
I know, but I didn't see these sources from you. I was just a little surprised when I found literal confirmation of my words from scientists.
1-2) The smaller the company, the more price matters.
Because in this case, if company too small the price of equipment to combat climate change will fall on ordinary workers, through cuts in their salaries or staff reduction. I am for the fight against climate change not to lead to this. Large companies that produce a lot of emissions can and should pay more than others. Medium-sized companies can pay much less, small companies have very little or nothing (depending on the level of emissions) Unfortunately, this a bit conflict with my minarchic views, but apparently nothing can be done about it. The state must set standards for permissible emission standards for different levels of companies, and those standards should be stricter for companies in more densely populated areas. And this helps not only to combat global warming, but also simply helps people breathe cleaner air. And we’re not just talking about hydrocarbons, but primarily about harmful and toxic elements. This may sound like something obvious, but not for post-Soviet countries. People in Russia in many cities breathe dirty air, and the penalties for dumping toxic waste into nature are small fines. And in part, this politicized trend of fighting climate change helps these people.
3) Maybe I don’t quite understand the question, how can the costs of filtration systems or similar systems be returned? Of course it won't be profitable. This cannot be a market mechanism, it must be a state law.
4) Well, of course, the fight against environmental pollution should be a priority, but as I said answering on first two qiestions, the fight against one can help fight the other. It is extremely rare for a company to emit pure CO2. It is usually accompanied by all sorts of other gas impurities, many elements of which can be unhealthy. The main thing is that the fight against climate change does not harm ordinary people. Large companies can do this with little financial damage that will not affect employees by installing additional equipment, or changing things within the company so that there are fewer emissions from production, I see only positive things in this.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
This is a great update that helps modmakers a lot, but most importantly it prepares the LFS for a really big update which I'm really looking forward to.
To be honest, I wasn't that interested in this topic and I started it for the sake of getting different opinions, and for the sake of that the method of coming up with contradictory arguments to fuel the discussion is well suited, which turned out to be quite good in terms of quantity, but bad in terms of quality.. Whell, I guess you wouldn't expect anything else in such a politicized topic.
But now its just I happened to find that in August of this year there was an declaration from over 1600 scientists including two Nobel laureates and professionals that said - There is no climate emergency.
"Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adap"
And literally what I was talking about was the excessive bias and politicization of research... About temperature cycles... About the greenhouse effect helping nature...
And there's also the fact that the death rate from climate-related events has dropped more than 10 times in the last 100 years, (picture attached) while green left-liberals continue to hysterical about the catastrophic effects of climate change on humans. Of course part of that may be due to increased medical care, but clearly not by 10 times.
Regarding bias and politicization in scientific research, there is an excellent article "I Left Out the Full Truth..." by a climate scientist on how the mechanisms of politicization and bias arise in scientific research. Here are some quotes from the article:
"Why is this happening?
It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades."
"Here’s how it works.
The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative—namely, that the effects of climate change are both pervasive and catastrophic..."
"This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper. The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change."
"Here’s a third trick: be sure to focus on metrics that will generate the most eye-popping numbers. Our paper, for instance, could have focused on a simple, intuitive metric like the number of additional acres that burned or the increase in intensity of wildfires because of climate change."
I mean, literally what I was talking about. BBut unfortunately, a lot of people, instead of accepting the problem and moving toward a solution, or at least looking out of their echo chamber, just continue to hysterical and biased about climate change as if nothing is happening.
And don't make another strawmans to argue with it, cuz I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening or it's not that I'm against many of the methods of fighting climate change, I can be in favor of them, especially those that limit the emissions of large corporations and companies.
It's just that you don't need to add your agenda to the science here because at that moment science stops being science.
But now its just I happened to find that in August of this year there was an declaration from over 1600 scientists including two Nobel laureates and professionals that said - There is no climate emergency.
"Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adap"
And literally what I was talking about was the excessive bias and politicization of research... About temperature cycles... About the greenhouse effect helping nature...
And there's also the fact that the death rate from climate-related events has dropped more than 10 times in the last 100 years, (picture attached) while green left-liberals continue to hysterical about the catastrophic effects of climate change on humans. Of course part of that may be due to increased medical care, but clearly not by 10 times.
Regarding bias and politicization in scientific research, there is an excellent article "I Left Out the Full Truth..." by a climate scientist on how the mechanisms of politicization and bias arise in scientific research. Here are some quotes from the article:
"Why is this happening?
It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades."
"Here’s how it works.
The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative—namely, that the effects of climate change are both pervasive and catastrophic..."
"This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper. The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change."
"Here’s a third trick: be sure to focus on metrics that will generate the most eye-popping numbers. Our paper, for instance, could have focused on a simple, intuitive metric like the number of additional acres that burned or the increase in intensity of wildfires because of climate change."
I mean, literally what I was talking about. BBut unfortunately, a lot of people, instead of accepting the problem and moving toward a solution, or at least looking out of their echo chamber, just continue to hysterical and biased about climate change as if nothing is happening.
And don't make another strawmans to argue with it, cuz I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening or it's not that I'm against many of the methods of fighting climate change, I can be in favor of them, especially those that limit the emissions of large corporations and companies.
It's just that you don't need to add your agenda to the science here because at that moment science stops being science.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG