- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: #flatearthers please check in. NYPost editorial shits all over climate change
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:56 pm to Bmath
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:56 pm to Bmath
quote:
Based on a figure I saw last week the majority of academia believes that AGW is true.
the 98% consensus?
Please tell me you understand that number, and the paper it is from, have been thoroughly discredited. Please.
1
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:57 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
ignore rising temperatures & sea levels.
As the "tabloid" points out...
What rising temperatures?
What rising sea levels?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:58 pm to doubleb
quote:
Why not stay out of the way and let it die a "natural" death???
It ruins land and pollutes. An you know its not going to be around forever. So start being proactive and planning a transition.
Jobs may be lost due to coal, but others will be created as new solutions are developed.
And we would have to assume that the new solutions will be equally cheap.
And yes the government has an obligation to protect its citizens, land, and resources. As weve seen time and again, business will cut every corner they can to make a buck.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:59 pm to Bmath
2 points as to the GW alarmists reasonings.
1. Follow the money, these scientists created a never ending source of money by fudging reality.
2. The one-world-globalists want to use GW scare tactics to create a one world government.
1. Follow the money, these scientists created a never ending source of money by fudging reality.
2. The one-world-globalists want to use GW scare tactics to create a one world government.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:01 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
We should move away from coal becuase it is a pollutant and is not renewable.
Actual "pollution" from coal burning is negligible. The only "pollutant" that is supposedly still "uncontrolled" is CO2, which regardless of what the EPA says, is NOT a "pollutant."
While it may be non-renewable, there's still a frickton of it on the planet, which is why it is cheap as shite and reliable as hell.
quote:
recall rivers catching fire? A dead-zone in the gulf the size of Massachusetts from fertilizer run-off? Smog(look at China)?
All of these are LOCAL events, NOT "global" as is being claimed by the AGW/CC crowd. Moreover, all of these are easily and readily measurable and provable, as opposed to AGW/CC, which relies upon speculation and computer modeling.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:03 pm to udtiger
quote:
Oregon-based physicist
What does that mean?
quote:
Gordon Fulks
hasn't published in over 30 years.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:10 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
It ruins land and pollutes. An you know its not going to be around forever. So start being proactive and planning a transition. Jobs may be lost due to coal, but others will be created as new solutions are developed. And we would have to assume that the new solutions will be equally cheap. And yes the government has an obligation to protect its citizens, land, and resources. As weve seen time and again, business will cut every corner they can to make a buck.
In case you missed it the govt. enacted the clean air act and in fact cleaned up the coal industry already.
And again I realize things evolve, and other energy sources will be there; but why all of a sudden kill the coal industry?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:14 pm to udtiger
quote:
Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks
I'm waiting for the geocentrists to start calling scientists that disagree with their religion "3%'rs".
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:15 pm to BobBoucher
We currently have no efficient alternative to coal. The Govt should not increase regulations to shut down coal plants because it will cripple the economy. They should leave that industry alone, not subsidize it either.
I would support the Govt granting money to research green projects to find better alternatives. But we shouldn't try to shut down coal until we actually have an alternative and the infrastructure to use it.
I would support the Govt granting money to research green projects to find better alternatives. But we shouldn't try to shut down coal until we actually have an alternative and the infrastructure to use it.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:17 pm to BobBoucher
government never cuts corners and always looks out for the citizens
I worship the State!
I worship the State!
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:19 pm to deltaland
quote:NatGas is that animal.
We currently have no efficient alternative to coal.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:20 pm to udtiger
quote:
Moreover, all of these are easily and readily measurable and provable, as opposed to AGW/CC, which relies upon speculation and computer modeling
Seems pretty cut and dried to me...makes you wonder why our national leaders continue to push this drivel off on the general public, even trying to shame/belittle those who disagree with their false narrative?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:25 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Please tell me you understand that number, and the paper it is from, have been thoroughly discredited. Please.
Perhaps, but I would say it is pretty fair that the majority do accept it. Or at least did. Anecdotally, it was the consensus at the last few SETAC and ESA conferences I went to.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:25 pm to BobBoucher
quote:What renewable sources do you suggest...keeping in mind the raw materials for PV is no more renewable than coal.
We should move away from coal becuase it is a pollutant and is not renewable.
quote:None of those thing have anything to do with AGW. Well, maybe the smog, but those are constituents that actually reduce AGW. Don't for a second make the reductio absurdum argent that not believing in the hyperbolic AGW claims equates to being a proponent of more pollution. It's a tired fallacy.
absurd statment. recall rivers catching fire? A dead-zone in the gulf the size of Massachusetts from fertilizer run-off? Smog(look at China)?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:27 pm to Bmath
quote:
Perhaps, but I would say it is pretty fair that the majority do accept it.
Who cares. It's a bullshite number. Idiots believe bullshite, specifically after it has been proven false.
quote:
Anecdotally, it was the consensus at the last few SETAC and ESA conferences I went to.
Repeating a bullshite statistic doesnt make a statistical measure any more accurate.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:27 pm to udtiger
Professor Fulks has about as much credibility as Leo DiCaprio when it comes to opining on climate change. His field of expertise is astrophysics not climatology or other relevant disciplines. It's like asking your insurance agent's opinion on your upcoming brain surgery.
Fulks is a whore who works for a conservative think tank and writes op-ed pieces on global warming. He has published only two peer-reviewed studies, the last one in 1981.
Fulks is a whore who works for a conservative think tank and writes op-ed pieces on global warming. He has published only two peer-reviewed studies, the last one in 1981.
This post was edited on 9/15/14 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:28 pm to Layabout
quote:
His field of expertise is astrophysics not climatology or other relevant disciplines. It's like asking your insurance agent's opinion on your upcoming brain surgery.
actually most modeling is calculus based, and an astrophysicist would understand those concepts, and quite well.
You really know nothing of the climate modeling, do you?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:29 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Repeating a bullshite statistic doesnt make a statistical measure any more accurate.
Aren't 83% of statistics made up on the spot?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:30 pm to Bmath
quote:
Aren't 83% of statistics made up on the spot?
nice deflection, but the point remains the same. the 98% stat is a bullshite number made up by a cartoonist. The sad fact that there are still educated people like yourself who repeat it whenever this topic comes up is depressing.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 4:31 pm to Layabout
quote:
It's like asking your insurance agent's opinion on your upcoming brain surgery.
Yeah it's just like that. Perfect analogy.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News