Frightening Thought
- Thread starter Da Peach
- Start date
Why do you think they changed the movement's name from the 'Global Warming Initiative' to the 'Climate Change Movement'? Because the Earth is cooling down and has been over the last two years. Can't have a strong movement when facts contradict the message.
As long as large govt dollars are spent given to science, the scientists will not be neutral. you listen to your donors when you get free money. In this case the Govt that wants to setup their investments in the green economy,
I'm all for being eco sensitive, and recycle and compost, but the current initiatives on the plate are silly, and this blog makes light of this.
As long as large govt dollars are spent given to science, the scientists will not be neutral. you listen to your donors when you get free money. In this case the Govt that wants to setup their investments in the green economy,
I'm all for being eco sensitive, and recycle and compost, but the current initiatives on the plate are silly, and this blog makes light of this.
It's really only frightening if you're naive enough to believe that the majority (or even a significant portion) of scientists in the world operate like that.
Which is seems teh joker is.
Which is seems teh joker is.
ooooohhhh! over the last 2 years!
you aren't very familiar with the field of climatology are you?
As kidwoo who works in environmental studies, some of which include climate monitoring says, "don't believe of bunch of dumbfvcks who have no idea what they're talking about, yet have strong opinions on the matter".
Ah, OK then.
Look at it this way. It's like a large scale campaign targeting your brother with the idea that rotor prop aviation is a scam and that people like him are only pushing it because of financial motivations, hiding the fact that it would never work.
Then when your brother speaks up making a case for the concept, a bunch of sarah palin supporters shout him down as just wanting big government and hating jesus.
It's not exactly sorcery and hat tricks at this point.
Last edited:
I fall into the category of people who haven't researched the issue all that much. Our development of the planet has certainly had its effects. What I've got a problem with, is the belief that we can just snap into action and expect instant results. I'm not big on hysteria.
As the Croatians say: Hasten Slowly.
It's freightening to think that the whole climate change thing has gotten to a state where it's promotion has become a business unto itself, creating a motivation to sneaky things like this in the first place.
As the Croatians say: Hasten Slowly.
It's freightening to think that the whole climate change thing has gotten to a state where it's promotion has become a business unto itself, creating a motivation to sneaky things like this in the first place.
Last edited:
And where are the croatians right now? Great advice, Exlax!
I dunno, somewhere on the loser side of the Atlantic
Ahh, okay. So you admittedly know virtually nothing about the topic but you strongly feel that people shouldn't believe what they hear.
That's fantastic.
Hasten slowly, huh? The intergovernmental panel on climate change issued their first assessment report in 1990. That was 19 years ago. The Kyoto protocol, which marked a significant recognition by the world that something should be done, was adopted in 1997. 12 years ago. This didn't all come about in a 6-month whirlwind romance. The data has been there for years.
But sure, by all means, let's not, you know, actually try to improve the welfare of the planet or anything. Lord knows we should all step back and do another fifty years of research first. I'd hate to think what kind of disaster might befall us if we reduced our carbon emissions. It might actually improve the welfare of the planet regardless of climate change. That'd be crazy and wrong.
I guess I know where to come to get edjumated about it...
I'm thinking the change process is likely just about on track for actually getting anything practicable in place. Say, 50 years?
Keep huffin and puffin. Once there's an agreement in place that won't cripple civilization as we know it, I'll be all for it. But I'm patient.
I just wish my friggin' derailleur hangers would get here...
Crippling civilization as we know it?
You don't think that's more than a little melodramatic?
I still don't understand how Charles has that much time on his hands.....
That bothers you more than the very privatized defense industry? The one who quite literally benefits DIRECTLY from people dying?
Are you upset that things like solar panels and non-toxic batteries might become cheap enough that they're the norm and not exceptions to the rule?
What about the very organized energy conglomerates that pour millions into 'public awareness campaigns' that pretty much create the downplaying words your buddy chuck thinks are his own? Not bothered by that at all eh?
I said 'eh' because you're canadian and that's what canadians say. It really does sound better than the american version of just ending a sentence with 'huh?' I'm waiting for a chance to insert 'give'r'. If you see a spot where it would work, let me know.
Last edited:
Not sure where that came from. Left field I guess. Heh. Get it? Left field! americans like baseball!
No way. That would be wicked. To engineers working on that, I say: "Give'er!".
No shred of truth to anything ever said by an energy company?
I totally agree. Feel free to use it at will. Give'er. Chicks dig accents.
I'd say the corruption of science is a pretty big thing to worry about. Especially when it's the "good guys" that are guilty of it. Then who's to be believed? Don't go blurring the lines of good end evil!
I fear you think I'm the drum-beater type; Like, say, my friend Chucker, and yourself. I am not.
I can only imagine what you'd think if you found out I was mining engineer. Eh?
I don't think you're a drum beater at all. (yet 
).
But I do think you have what amounts to a somewhat limited understanding of everything that's gone into the whole theory that the planet's surface is heating up and there's a good chance humanity has something to do with it. It's not a new concept and it's not just some idea someone had and then went and cherry picked data to support the idea. Cherry picked......you know like all those emails that were selectively chosen that your buddy's blog is referencing. There's no grand conspiracy. Really. And even if there are some people with less than defensible motives, that really doesn't cast that much of a shadow on the DECADES worth of information gathering on this topic from thousands and thousands of people all over the world, all zeroing in on the same relative conclusion.
You sound bothered by the model of predictable scientific outcomes (or foregone conclusions) for the sake of money and future funding. I brought up the defense industry because it's a glaring example of an industry spawned from a need or desire to provide innovation outside of what the government could/would do. Now those fvckers have lobbyists and people IN the government who make money when we decide to go to war or move in somewhere to 'keep da peace' or more recently change a regime. So guess what they advocate? That's a much more diabolical setup than making money when somebody drives a battery powered car. And it bothers me a hell of a lot more than the threat of an industry being born that has as its basis, moving away from fossil fuels. But I'm the one who lives in the country that seems to get bored if we don't have a war every so often. I could see where that would bug me more than others.
For what it's worth, I do think that anyone who 'cooks' data for the sake of the hand that feeds needs a swift kick in the nuts. But one instance does not a conspiracy make.
).But I do think you have what amounts to a somewhat limited understanding of everything that's gone into the whole theory that the planet's surface is heating up and there's a good chance humanity has something to do with it. It's not a new concept and it's not just some idea someone had and then went and cherry picked data to support the idea. Cherry picked......you know like all those emails that were selectively chosen that your buddy's blog is referencing. There's no grand conspiracy. Really. And even if there are some people with less than defensible motives, that really doesn't cast that much of a shadow on the DECADES worth of information gathering on this topic from thousands and thousands of people all over the world, all zeroing in on the same relative conclusion.
You sound bothered by the model of predictable scientific outcomes (or foregone conclusions) for the sake of money and future funding. I brought up the defense industry because it's a glaring example of an industry spawned from a need or desire to provide innovation outside of what the government could/would do. Now those fvckers have lobbyists and people IN the government who make money when we decide to go to war or move in somewhere to 'keep da peace' or more recently change a regime. So guess what they advocate? That's a much more diabolical setup than making money when somebody drives a battery powered car. And it bothers me a hell of a lot more than the threat of an industry being born that has as its basis, moving away from fossil fuels. But I'm the one who lives in the country that seems to get bored if we don't have a war every so often. I could see where that would bug me more than others.
That's not what I said. But don't deny that there's been things like former oil execs advising the president of the united states to remove potentially damning information that the EPA tried to publish. because that DID happen. And jeesh, who do you think payed for all those ads a year or two ago about drilling in ANWAR? "concerned citizens"????? There is lots and lots of money to be made and/or saved by NOT changing from the status quo. You're an engineer......you know about tooling costs.
For what it's worth, I do think that anyone who 'cooks' data for the sake of the hand that feeds needs a swift kick in the nuts. But one instance does not a conspiracy make.
Last edited:
Ah!
A cop!!!!!!
A cop!!!!!!
Global warming is just like that Ozone Hole scam. They scared everyone into buying new air conditioners and different hair spray. Now that they made their money you don't even hear about that crap any more.
I know. And who pays the price? My hair! Just look at it! You call that "hold"! Bullsh!t!
you appear to have a caterpillar on your face.
Has this even happened here? From the reading I've done on it, it seems a little like a biologist not sharing his research data with a creationist who is going to use it to discredit the first guy.
****, I'm educated like Stephen Hawking and Einstein combined compared to Da Peach on this one, because I've done 10 minutes of reading...
****, I'm educated like Stephen Hawking and Einstein combined compared to Da Peach on this one, because I've done 10 minutes of reading...
Uh....you ever look at the melanoma rates in australia?
Read the first sentence.
http://www.skincancer.gov.au/internet/skincancer/publishing.nsf/Content/fact-2
That ain't from fosters and grilled shrimp.
Get a job! Hippy!
just some food for thought...
two things come to mind with the whole anthropogenic climate change argument.
1. one of the first things you learn in statistics is that correlation is not the same thing as causation.
2. in my climatology class, taught by the state climatologist of vermont, one thing that i distinctly remember learning is that there is still a lot of mystery surrounding the effects of greenhouse gases on the climate, much more than what the media alludes to.
two things come to mind with the whole anthropogenic climate change argument.
1. one of the first things you learn in statistics is that correlation is not the same thing as causation.
2. in my climatology class, taught by the state climatologist of vermont, one thing that i distinctly remember learning is that there is still a lot of mystery surrounding the effects of greenhouse gases on the climate, much more than what the media alludes to.
Last edited:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02s49fq74&continuous=1
I don't know if this is the same thing you folks are talking about, but watch that video starting at around 8:20.
Of course, I remember that term coming into popular use back around 2002 (there was that International Panel on Climate Change warning back in 1997 also)...but sure, let's be a dumbass and pretend they just changed it yesterday so it fits your retarded, unfounded argument.
How many scientists do you know, and what possible evidence has led you to this retarded conclusion? My current project (environment related, sound the alarm!) is funded by the government...I've yet to see a set of instructions on what data Im to manufacture stapled to a check. I would also be immediately fired, and likely blackballed from ever working in the field again by my peers, If I were ever to report something untrue, or skew the data I collect into meaning something it doesn't.
Something you probably don't realize, working in the world of finance, is that ethical considerations are at the absolute forefront, and actually considered important in many professions. There are checks and balances in this field to prevent exactly the kind of garbage you're suggesting. Not to say there have never been bad apples or that bad science has never been published, but you are in birther/911 conspiracy-theory territory when you start accusing science as a whole of colluding to slow down economic progress, by way of a manufactured global scare tactic. It's so stupid, I can't even comprehend how a rational person could believe it to be so.
Yeah, this dumbsh*t blogger, conspiracy-theorist fvcktard has it all figured out. Who needs scientists when you have some a**hole in his mother's basement, with too much free time on his hands telling you "how it really is."
Im glad you've made the leap to being "eco sensitive" though, whatever the hell that means. Thanks for your contribution to saving our planet.
Last edited:
I didn't watch your Youtube videos yet but...
Also, that implies that the only two things observed are temperature change and emission of greenhouse gases. Like saying, "the sky is blue and my TV stopped working. Therefore, blue skies cause my TV to stop working."
That's not the case. What is being said is that greenhouse gases do, in fact, cause temperature changes. They have been studied to determine their capacity to absorb and reflect infrared radiation. It's not as simple as observing a change and linking some random other change to it.
Of course. On the other hand, when there is no experimental way to irrefutably prove a large scale causation, you gather a lot of data and from a lot of avenues and make a reasonable link between the two.
Also, that implies that the only two things observed are temperature change and emission of greenhouse gases. Like saying, "the sky is blue and my TV stopped working. Therefore, blue skies cause my TV to stop working."
That's not the case. What is being said is that greenhouse gases do, in fact, cause temperature changes. They have been studied to determine their capacity to absorb and reflect infrared radiation. It's not as simple as observing a change and linking some random other change to it.
and quite often those are the only things referenced when you hear about climate change in the media. i am well aware of the fact that studying climate change is much more than just taking the temperature and measuring the amount of co2 in the atmosphere.
make sure to check out part 4 of the videos, i got a kick out of some of the placements of those weather stations.
May I suggest a little light reading as it pertains to the topic?
Thomas Kuhn-- The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I recognized the philosophical in the book much more than the detail-- (case studies used to support his claims)
It has been 8 or 10 years since I picked the book up, google will tell you more than I could at this point. ...I just may dust it off and revisit it this winter......
Thomas Kuhn-- The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I recognized the philosophical in the book much more than the detail-- (case studies used to support his claims)
It has been 8 or 10 years since I picked the book up, google will tell you more than I could at this point. ...I just may dust it off and revisit it this winter......
Forgive me, but you just came into the thread shouting correlation doesn't equal causation and then backpedal to say, "well, no, I just meant the media sometimes makes it sorta look like that."
What you were presented in stats class is simplistic.
If you want to discuss exactly how climate change is presented in the media, there are a lot more problems in how the media presents everything and how people consume it. That's not what you said, or the focus of the thread here.
Yeah listening to that guy is like listening to N8 on weather data. I actually run a few weather stations. One or two in a parking lot doesn't do jack shlt to the numbers coming from the thousands and thousands and thousands of weather stations very intentionally placed out in the middle of BFE even IF (IF!!!!!) someone's dumb enough to not correct for obvious external influences. What he calls an embarrassment is AGAIN a moron's oversimplification of how data is collected and analyzed. I can guaran****ingtee you anyone using a station that suddenly has asphalt underneath it knows damn well what caused a change in a trend. His little tirade is cute, but to anyone who actually does research for a living, he's a hack. You the university he teaches at just turned 40! That's some prestigious shlt!
You guys want to talk about skewed info for profit.......there ya go. Bob Carter.
EDIT: this why this kind of crap pisses me off. Morons like this can make an easy argument for people that haven't a clue on how research is actually conducted. Like no one ever fvcking reviews anything......it just gets thrown out there on a whim. If you're an ignoramus, then sure! Looky at them silly weather stashuns! Har har! Them boyz doin science is stoopidz!
Last edited:
Uh. Blogspot is blocked at my work so I've only just actually read these links.
I can't believe that a thread was even spawned off such ridiculousness
I can't believe that a thread was even spawned off such ridiculousness
This is more my brother's speed I think
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9943298
Those youtube links are too much.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9943298
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9943298
Those youtube links are too much.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9943298