Climate What?
- Thread starter stoney
- Start date
Joker, seriously, you have to ask yourself "Why am I unwilling to accept the notion that man has altered the earth's climate?"
Why is it an issue for you, and what, in particular, makes you think the vast majority in the scientific community are either (a) totally incompetent, or (b) conspiring liars? And what evidence do you have to support such a claim? If you don't have a firm basis for such belief... that makes your current belief irrational.
Do you take issue when a new cancer drug is created by science? Do you refuse to believe it could possibly be effective? Of course you dont, because (1) you don't know sh*t about science anyway, as evidenced by your many ill-informed posts here and (2) because you don't give a sh*t about cancer drugs.
So when did you start caring about the climate? I am sure you are like most people... you were told by some pundit that it was all nonsense, so you suddenly felt like you were better-informed than the masses, and so now you post here trying to get people to believe how you do. My question is why?
Why do you put faith in pundits over the proven track record of science? Give me an example in the past, of when the frothing, fundamentalist conservative retard-coalition ever beat science at its own game?
Why is it an issue for you, and what, in particular, makes you think the vast majority in the scientific community are either (a) totally incompetent, or (b) conspiring liars? And what evidence do you have to support such a claim? If you don't have a firm basis for such belief... that makes your current belief irrational.
Do you take issue when a new cancer drug is created by science? Do you refuse to believe it could possibly be effective? Of course you dont, because (1) you don't know sh*t about science anyway, as evidenced by your many ill-informed posts here and (2) because you don't give a sh*t about cancer drugs.
So when did you start caring about the climate? I am sure you are like most people... you were told by some pundit that it was all nonsense, so you suddenly felt like you were better-informed than the masses, and so now you post here trying to get people to believe how you do. My question is why?
Why do you put faith in pundits over the proven track record of science? Give me an example in the past, of when the frothing, fundamentalist conservative retard-coalition ever beat science at its own game?
Sarah Palin thinks that global climate change is BS and is quite vocal about it...
Do I really need to go any further ?
Do I really need to go any further ?
About the same time white sunglasses and the whole bros/hoes thing got old, I imagine...
Re: BS -
Do I feel that Man has had a detrimental impact on Earth? Yes.
Do I believe that creating a cap on CO2, which is not nearly as potent as say methane is the correct solution? No.
Do I think that creating a cap on CO2 that creates an artificial market so that rich nations and companies can buy the cleanliness and eco-friendly business models of others, by swapping credits? No.
Do I think that the books of every politician and firm promoting these CO2 limits be laid open to see just how much they will profit based on this new market and govt subsidies to promote small green businesses? YES!
How does allowing only 10 'credits' for five firms, one of whom consumes 8 credits because they are a polluter but can buy their way out of cleaning their production, vs the other four which only need .5 each, but get two anyways to bribe them to be cleaner even still solve the problem?
All it will do is stifle free thinking businesses who can not start up because they don't have carbon credits.
I've back through on the finances to see who will profit from these new laws, and shockingly, SHOCKINGLY it is the politicians and businesses that are promoting this the heaviest.
We don't need a global mandate to "fix" this. We need global awareness.
All the current politicking is going to get us is a large tab to be paid out of public funds, to the pockets of a select few.
AMS - I actually just wrote a mutli-page email blasting someone for sending around Palin's little letter about climate Change. She is a politician that is making noise, trying to instigate fear and anger in the dumber parts of our population to get herself elected because 'she's just like them'.
You do realize that why we're all focusing on Copenhagen, the largest theft of public money ever to occur is happening via the Fed, Treasury, and the 'to big to fail' banks. The Congress is about to re-confirm Bernanke who ahs stated that he will dump money out of helicopters to prevent a depression. ie by inflating our way out of debt. That means that CPI (which somehow excludes food and fuel...) will go ballistic. Any savings you have generated in say.. the last 10 years, is worth nearly 50% less due to the printing of currency via debt issuance and monetization by the Fed. Cap and Trade will increase cost of living by another 25% (iirc, might be low). This healthcare bill? Yeah, if you want to call it that. IT doesn't reduce HC costs. If you really wanted to reduce HC costs, reform Tort law and make hospitals list pricing for procedures. Reduce the cost of malpractice insurance and introduce competition.
What needs to be done to fix our country and our environment are not easy fixes. They will be painful, and since nobody is willing to take the pain, they will not happen. Capping carbon does not do this. If Brazil is unable to have the Amazon declared off limits, companies will just buy trees and continue along their merry way poluting, because they have offset. It's a ****ing joke.
Do I feel that Man has had a detrimental impact on Earth? Yes.
Do I believe that creating a cap on CO2, which is not nearly as potent as say methane is the correct solution? No.
Do I think that creating a cap on CO2 that creates an artificial market so that rich nations and companies can buy the cleanliness and eco-friendly business models of others, by swapping credits? No.
Do I think that the books of every politician and firm promoting these CO2 limits be laid open to see just how much they will profit based on this new market and govt subsidies to promote small green businesses? YES!
How does allowing only 10 'credits' for five firms, one of whom consumes 8 credits because they are a polluter but can buy their way out of cleaning their production, vs the other four which only need .5 each, but get two anyways to bribe them to be cleaner even still solve the problem?
All it will do is stifle free thinking businesses who can not start up because they don't have carbon credits.
I've back through on the finances to see who will profit from these new laws, and shockingly, SHOCKINGLY it is the politicians and businesses that are promoting this the heaviest.
We don't need a global mandate to "fix" this. We need global awareness.
All the current politicking is going to get us is a large tab to be paid out of public funds, to the pockets of a select few.
AMS - I actually just wrote a mutli-page email blasting someone for sending around Palin's little letter about climate Change. She is a politician that is making noise, trying to instigate fear and anger in the dumber parts of our population to get herself elected because 'she's just like them'.
You do realize that why we're all focusing on Copenhagen, the largest theft of public money ever to occur is happening via the Fed, Treasury, and the 'to big to fail' banks. The Congress is about to re-confirm Bernanke who ahs stated that he will dump money out of helicopters to prevent a depression. ie by inflating our way out of debt. That means that CPI (which somehow excludes food and fuel...) will go ballistic. Any savings you have generated in say.. the last 10 years, is worth nearly 50% less due to the printing of currency via debt issuance and monetization by the Fed. Cap and Trade will increase cost of living by another 25% (iirc, might be low). This healthcare bill? Yeah, if you want to call it that. IT doesn't reduce HC costs. If you really wanted to reduce HC costs, reform Tort law and make hospitals list pricing for procedures. Reduce the cost of malpractice insurance and introduce competition.
What needs to be done to fix our country and our environment are not easy fixes. They will be painful, and since nobody is willing to take the pain, they will not happen. Capping carbon does not do this. If Brazil is unable to have the Amazon declared off limits, companies will just buy trees and continue along their merry way poluting, because they have offset. It's a ****ing joke.
Potent what?
Do you even know what either of those molecules are or do?
What's funny is that you didn't even answer any of Burly's questions anyway. And backpedaled from the title of your own thread.
Well, when it comes to pollution and greenhouse gases, I prefer to see it thru my eyes.
I commute mostly by train and bicycle. When I see thousands of cars on the road, I think we need to cut back.
I do think Gore is a douche, but I also think the Climate deniers are have simply their own agenda, and it is not one for the environment.
I commute mostly by train and bicycle. When I see thousands of cars on the road, I think we need to cut back.
I do think Gore is a douche, but I also think the Climate deniers are have simply their own agenda, and it is not one for the environment.
Clearly the scientists chose C02 over methane in their misdirected efforts to reign in climate change purely because they have so much to gain by blaming C02 over methane. Not because C02 is actually the bigger problem.
What kind of retarded conspiracy do you have to convolute to believe there is something sinister about targeting C02 over methane?
I get that some people want to deny the whole thing, but to believe that all of the climate science community has somehow missed the whole methane thing, or even more ridiculous, is SUPPRESSING the methane thing, is absolute insanity. Even if you believe the root of the global warming "lobby" is a guilt complex or power grab, Methane fits that complex perfectly well and could be targeted on the same moral grounds. It's not. Maybe a conspiracy within the conspiracy of the C02 lobby outmaneuvering the methane lobby?
"Artificial market?" I can't tell if you're feigning ignorance here. You work in finance right? Unless you're bartering, what do you think a market is? Someone has to value the future of the planet. Who do you suggest that is?
Sure. Already the case for the politicians (at least in the US), and for any public companies. We know Goldman rapes the taxpayer every time money moves. It's not going to change the fact that we still need to move money and someone has to help us do it. Unfortunate reality of any market is that the middle man/broker/facilitator makes money. Do you feel any guilt about the fact that you're eating the rapists' table scraps?
You just described a market. Surely you understand this concept?
You know this is an easy problem to solve. Are you trying to not know?
You know who else benefits? Humans.
Who's the pie-in-the-sky, bleeding-heart, wishful thinker now? You work in finance. What could possibly lead you to believe that if people just understand the long-term repercussions of their actions they would suddenly stop short term selfish behavior. WHAT?!?
Agreed. What does this have to do with climate change? By the way, if awareness solves the problem, why do bankers continue to rob the taxpayer knowing that over the mid-term it will lead to economic collapse?
First, again, what does this have to do with climate change?
Second, does everyone in finance get together once a month, swap vegas hooker/blow stories, agree to these asinine opinions, and then spread the good word? This is almost verbatim what I hear from every financial worker I know.
The total cost of both lawsuits and malpractice pales in comparison to the total cost of care in the US. It's great to beat up on lawyers, but it's a red herring. Introducing competition would be nice, but you know what would be even nicer? If we didn't have a nasty love triangle of a system that eliminates anything approaching incentives for cost reduction. In an insurance-based system, everyone wins (except, oops, the patient) by just ****ing the customer and continually raising premiums.
They would at least begin to PAY for that rape of the earth, and eventually we may actually value it properly. You seem to be proposing that they continue to rape the earth for free, as if that's a better solution. Again, WHAT?!?
Last edited:
Stay down Joker! Stay down!
+rep.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/revenge_of_the_computer_nerds_1.html
Any code monkeys want to chime in with regards to the claims re: code manipulation within the data sets? Also, losing the original data sets that back up your argument does seem a bit foolish/convenient depending on your viewpoint, especially if you wanted to without questions prove a theory.
Any code monkeys want to chime in with regards to the claims re: code manipulation within the data sets? Also, losing the original data sets that back up your argument does seem a bit foolish/convenient depending on your viewpoint, especially if you wanted to without questions prove a theory.
Hold on a second.
You're completely okay with the idea that you don't know squat about the program or the dataset in question or the literature surrounding it and you're accepting that version at face value because it correlates with what you'd like to believe.
The link you posted actually links to John Graham-Cumming's blog and a post where he analyzes the code:
http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/very-artificial-correction-flap-looks.html
John Graham-Cumming is a pretty well respected programmer and actually doesn't have an agenda (unlike the decidedly-slanted news source you linked to). Since none of us have everything surrounding this code to paint a full picture of what's going on, I'm far more inclined to lend credence to a reasonable dissection of the code with correlations to the literature surrounding it than I am to buy into the screaming hyperbole that are the rest of the posts I'm reading on the subject. The articles on American Thinker that discuss this are full of gems such as "Turns out that these claims are absolutely false, and the computer models have been rigged" immediately before demonstrating that he doesn't exactly know the full implications of the code.
As a matter of fact, I'm even less inclined to give a source credibility when they link to what is a very reasonable discussion of a topic and then they simply smear it with "try following that logic" instead of rebutting it in any substantial fashion.
And in any event, frankly, it's a red herring. People frothing at the mouth about some out of context code whose purpose and significance is not entirely clear that correlates to a single data set out of decades worth of aggregated data. Neither you nor I could judge the significance of the data without reading and testing substantial portions of the program's code and knowing why adjustment factors might have been applied to data.
Complicating the issue is stupid and asinine anyway. Nobody needs to be a programmer to understand the piece of code they've yanked out of the rest of the program. It's got some freakin' numbers in it that can be added/multiplied to other numbers to adjust the output. If you got past the third grade, you'll probably recognize that this series of numbers starts at zero, dips into the negatives, and then goes into the positive. Congratulations, you're now as learned about programming as my 98 year old grandmother is.
You're completely okay with the idea that you don't know squat about the program or the dataset in question or the literature surrounding it and you're accepting that version at face value because it correlates with what you'd like to believe.
The link you posted actually links to John Graham-Cumming's blog and a post where he analyzes the code:
http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/very-artificial-correction-flap-looks.html
John Graham-Cumming is a pretty well respected programmer and actually doesn't have an agenda (unlike the decidedly-slanted news source you linked to). Since none of us have everything surrounding this code to paint a full picture of what's going on, I'm far more inclined to lend credence to a reasonable dissection of the code with correlations to the literature surrounding it than I am to buy into the screaming hyperbole that are the rest of the posts I'm reading on the subject. The articles on American Thinker that discuss this are full of gems such as "Turns out that these claims are absolutely false, and the computer models have been rigged" immediately before demonstrating that he doesn't exactly know the full implications of the code.
As a matter of fact, I'm even less inclined to give a source credibility when they link to what is a very reasonable discussion of a topic and then they simply smear it with "try following that logic" instead of rebutting it in any substantial fashion.
And in any event, frankly, it's a red herring. People frothing at the mouth about some out of context code whose purpose and significance is not entirely clear that correlates to a single data set out of decades worth of aggregated data. Neither you nor I could judge the significance of the data without reading and testing substantial portions of the program's code and knowing why adjustment factors might have been applied to data.
Complicating the issue is stupid and asinine anyway. Nobody needs to be a programmer to understand the piece of code they've yanked out of the rest of the program. It's got some freakin' numbers in it that can be added/multiplied to other numbers to adjust the output. If you got past the third grade, you'll probably recognize that this series of numbers starts at zero, dips into the negatives, and then goes into the positive. Congratulations, you're now as learned about programming as my 98 year old grandmother is.
An acquaintance of mine was telling me last weekend how he didn't believe in global warming. I asked him a few questions and it was rather obvious that he knew nothing of the actual data or science to support his beliefs. It was just a convenient truth for him.
You have to love a country whose existence is pretty much based on technology, where religion is considered natural law and the science that is the foundation of our all our technology is considered mere philosophy. I've said it before and I will say it again, this country is going to **** and in the spirit of democracy we deserve it. If you want your children to have a good career when they grow up you better teach them how to say 'love you long time' in Mandarin.
You have to love a country whose existence is pretty much based on technology, where religion is considered natural law and the science that is the foundation of our all our technology is considered mere philosophy. I've said it before and I will say it again, this country is going to **** and in the spirit of democracy we deserve it. If you want your children to have a good career when they grow up you better teach them how to say 'love you long time' in Mandarin.
Proxy records confirm climate change...
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3204073&postcount=6
If you don't want to read the actual study linked in my post, here is the popular media version from Nat Geo - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0209_060209_warming.html
Nat Geo said:
Last edited:
Last night Jesse Ventura proved climate change was a hoax and a scam. It is nothing more than a new way for companies to get rich off the stupidity of others. If you can't believe Jesse Ventura, then who can you believe?
/thread
/thread
The University of East Anglia is the group who's data set is under question currently, so... yeah.
As for my supposed lack of belief that anthropomorphic climate change...
I do not disagree that we as a humans need to change how we treat the planet far, far better. My issues stem from how it is being done. We do not need to create a marketplace based around the trading of carbon credits which are delivered though an inherently political manner.
It can be done in a very black and white manner. If you release X amount of pollutants, then to 'offset' that, you must put Y dollars aside to clean than up, where Y >= the cost of cleaning X AND you must contribute Z to a pool that acquires and maintains tracts of forest and land to be re-forested (which is to be a global preserve safe from commercial interests).
Don't make an exchange and "value offset". Make it tangible. Create to offset destruction.
Try reading the article next time. They used physical proxy records with proven reliability in that study (tree rings, ice cores, fossils, stalagmites, and others), not computer climate models so it backs up and confirms the computer models with physical records.
Last edited:
Best argument against global warming to date:
The sole purpose is to create one world under the Euro, as found in the bible.Nutjob on TruTV forum said:
You are working on the Euro market, aren't you...
I saw that Last night
Was quite interesting . I found a Couple of things made sense other not so.
the one thing he did say that made the Most sense for just about any thing was
"Follow the Money"
But the whole concept that Global warming is just a conspiracy to take over the world ! wow ! Sounds like something from Pinky and the Brain.
I didn't watch too closely as I was multitasking. But I love the idea that "more questions than answers" = teh WIN is funny to me. And is uber secret meeting in an undisclosed warehouse location cracked me up.
Yes, there are a lot of companies that stand to make money off any "movement". But that doesn't mean the movement is false or based on lies, either.
Unless my reading comprehension is off, you're missing a fundamental flaw to this argument. It would not be necessary to offset the mess with clean-up dollars if you never made the mess in the first place.
This is like taking cholesterol lowering medication and continuing to eat fried chicken, biscuits and gravy daily.
If you are aware of actions that create a problem for you then stop execution those actions.
You want him to give me a $5 BJ?
Wait, I've been wasting my time on Capp Street?
I will happily concede that your model is much more straightforward. Any idea why cap and trade is considered more feasible?
1) the word "tax" (joker is describing a carbon tax in as many words)
2) more chance for shady under-the-table dealings with cap and trade allocations, although i'm sure the same would be worked into exceptions to a tax rule
Effectively, but for more than just carbon. Looking at other toxic, causitc, etc output.
2) Cap and trade is shady. I know a few people that are carbon traders or work in that area, and as a group, they are the shadiest mo fo's I've ever met.
Obviously both taxes. The only thing I can think of is that it's much easier to come up with a science-based cap and let the market value the scarce resource, than it is to try to properly value the resource (create the right tax rate) to generate a market equilibrium under the scientific cap.
Hey M just do me a favor.
Learn to separate your personal opinions on legislation from the science upon which they may cling to.
Nobody would really jump on your case if you'd just started out with something along the lines of "why cap and trade sucks"
Pretending you know something about science and thinking you're debunking something just makes you look kind of silly. And as this thread has progressed, everyone now knows that's not your issue anyway.
Learn to separate your personal opinions on legislation from the science upon which they may cling to.
Nobody would really jump on your case if you'd just started out with something along the lines of "why cap and trade sucks"
Pretending you know something about science and thinking you're debunking something just makes you look kind of silly. And as this thread has progressed, everyone now knows that's not your issue anyway.
And while I would generally agree that a marketplace is the best manner of valuing a scare resource, there is already talk of complex carbon based derivatives based on cost of nat gas and oil. The more complex and convoluded the financail produt, the better the chance to manipulate the market and for things to blow up.
K - Point.
See, this is where I bow out of the discussion because it's not a discipline Im familiar with. I could probably dig up some internet source to refute something you're saying... but what would be the point of that?