- 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: Some ????'s for lefties/greenies/GW supporters
Posted on 6/16/14 at 4:04 pm to petar
Posted on 6/16/14 at 4:04 pm to petar
quote:
What all else do you do to help alleviate this problem and not be selfish?
The AGW problem? Nothing. Its a problem we have to solve together. I'm not going to sacrifice my own comfort so the rest of you can continue to guzzle gasoline, sorry, that's not the way I work. When you're all ready to solve the problem together, we can use a market based approach and then I'll pay the same price as everyone else does to fix the problem.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 4:08 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I'm not going to sacrifice my own comfort so the rest of you can continue to guzzle gasoline,
Posted on 6/16/14 at 7:10 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I'm not going to sacrifice my own comfort so the rest of you can continue to guzzle gasoline, sorry, that's not the way I work.
So - we all get plug-in hybrids - and then, what, build a shite ton of coal-fired plants?
Electricity has to be generated, Spidey.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:52 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Electricity has to be generated, Spidey.
Awesome. Pass cap and trade. The market will figure out how to do it with less carbon - and eventually - with next to zero.
Either way - I'm not paying TWICE for global warming simply because you refuse to acknowledge you'll have to pay for it ONCE no matter what happens. You expect me to absorb BOTH the cost of the damage to the environment AND the cost to prevent that damage? No thanks. I'm not some ignorant greenie tree loving hippie, I'm not bearing your burden AND mine, frick that.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 9:54 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:55 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
You expect me to absorb BOTH the cost of the damage to the environment AND the cost to prevent that damage?
Absorbing both wouldn't be possible, unless the prevention measure failed.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:57 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Absorbing both wouldn't be possible, unless the prevention measure failed.
And therefore was a costly, wasteful exercise in "feelgoodism".
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:03 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Absorbing both wouldn't be possible, unless the prevention measure failed.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:43 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Great. It does nothing to establish the MWP was globally warmer.
well the only way to actually know that would be to have records of temperature. The computer models may or may not be accurate because a whole hell of alot goes into temp than Co2 levels.
quote:
And it was written by complete shills doing fake science.
tell me how it is fake.
quote:
The authors of the paper didn't see fit to expose it to criticism by the peer review process, so why should I bother? If the very people who wrote it didn't think it would withstand anonymous peer review, clearly it isn't worth spit.
why would he expose it to peer review, when everybody that challenges the prevailing thought is automatically written off.
:begin hijack/rant:
There is a book you should read it is called the Soul Made Flesh by Carl Zimmer. It deals with medicine and the study of anatomy over the centuries. The parrallels between the current GW/CC scenario and the centuries of "medical research" are extremely similar. You have a central power that preaches a doctrine for political power (the Catholic Church and other religious groups dting back to the ancient Greeks and Romans in the book and IPCC today). They do everything in their power to discredit anybody who disagrees with them by the same tactics that you are using (except the AGW ppl haven't gone to burning at the stake yet). It turns out some of the ppl that were discredited for not doing proper techniques (aristotelian or building on the work of Galen) or using "fake science" were actually right.
:end hijack/rant:
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:02 pm to BayouBlitz
quote:
Nope. It just gets old having to respond to every agenda based article that 'disproves' global warming.
I have no agenda, I actually use green energy where I can and try to limit my Co2 output except I drive a F150 (with ecoboost) because a hybrid won't pull a boat, or get down a muddy road. I never said it disproves GW it just raises a few ??'s about it and that make me question the political solutions (i.e cap and trade) not the science.
quote:
The vast amount of science professionals and the vast amount of data support the GW trend. That includes scientists who aren't getting grants to color their opinion.
Just because a scientist gets a grant doesn't mean he is skewed. Just because exxon or another oil company pays for a study doesn't mean the data is skewed. Most oil companies are highly invested in alternative energy because they are looking to future markets.
quote:
Why waste time arguing about it?
see my previous post about the book soul made flesh. If you just acceprt what everybody says then you waste over 500 years studying anatomy without actually dissecting a real person.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:14 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The authors of the paper didn't see fit to expose it to criticism by the peer review process,
you want peer reviewed here ya go 1 page summary
quote:
NIPCC is an international network of some 50 independent scientists from 15 countries, many of
them distinguished and with no financial stake in the debate. Their new report consists of two
volumes, each approximately 1,000 pages long, together citing nearly 6,000 peer-reviewed
studies.
Here is what the scientists found:
# There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.
# Future warming due to human greenhouse gases will likely be much less than IPCC
forecasts.
# Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to
melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms.
# The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs.
Here is what this means for public policy:
# Global warming is not a crisis. The threat was exaggerated.
# There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so.
# It’s time to repeal unnecessary and expensive policies.
# Future policies should aim at fostering economic growth to adapt to natural climate change.
What about those who still say global warming is a crisis?
# The UN’s new report walks back nearly a dozen earlier claims, contains more than a dozen
errors, and tries to cover up new discoveries that contradict its earlier claims.
# The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relies heavily on the UN’s reports for its
finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. That finding is now falsified.
# Environmental g
here is a link to the whole 1,000 page study. I ain't got time for that but maybe you do
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:50 pm to WeeWee
quote:
tell me how it is fake.
This is how it works.
You set up a website. You give it an official sounding name like "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change". You put papers on it. You get one or two other guys to read the papers and to be a member of your 'foundation'. Then you call it a peer reviewed paper. Exxon Mobil sends you checks.
quote:
why would he expose it to peer review
Because he wants to do science?
quote:How could they be? All the folks "challenging the prevailing view" refuse to submit their papers to peer review to even be written off!
, when everybody that challenges the prevailing thought is automatically written off.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 11:52 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:53 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:You have still not disproved the conclussions of the paper. ETA: I also just found a website with over 1000 peervreviewed papers but I am on my phone and cant link, will do so in the am, but I an going to bed now.
SpidermanTUba
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 11:58 pm
Posted on 6/17/14 at 12:07 am to WeeWee
quote:
you want peer reviewed here ya go 1 page summary
The NPICC was actually founded by Fred Singer and is funded by
Do you even know who Fred Singer is? He is most famously known for denying that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer. He's a paid shill. His purpose in life is to produce misleading documents to fool the masses.
quote:
Idso, Craig D.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
USA
Idso, Sherwood B.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
USA
And of COURSE the lead author is Craig Idso!
Funny how his name turns up on just about every denialist "publication"
Posted on 6/17/14 at 12:07 am to WeeWee
quote:
You have still not disproved the conclussions of the paper
There's nothing to disprove.
quote:
I also just found a website with over 1000 peervreviewed papers but I am on my phone and cant link, will do so in the am, but I an going to bed now.
Yeah. Many of them from such rock solid climate science journals such as "Iron & Steel Technology" and "Economics Bulletin". I'm not kidding.
This post was edited on 6/17/14 at 12:18 am
Posted on 6/17/14 at 12:18 am to SpidermanTUba
Do you actually read the publications or do you just dismiss everyting if it IPCC doesn't say it? All you have done is attack the source not the info.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 12:21 am to WeeWee
quote:
Do you actually read the publications or do you just dismiss everyting if it IPCC doesn't say it?
I'm not sure what "publications" you are referring to.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 12:29 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:again do you actually read and consider the arguments or do you just disapprove it because you dislike the publication, author etc.?
Yeah. Many of them from such rock solid climate science journals such as "Iron & Steel Technology" and "Economics Bulletin". I'm not kidding.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 12:35 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I'm not sure what "publications" you are referring to.
the climate change reconsidered ones. LINK oh no you think the guy is a hack but I know you are a hack so I am not debating you anymore.
here is the link to the 1000+ papers offering evidence for skeptism. Also take time to read the articles and support documention the authors actually address a lot of you bullshite response with way more substance than you do. LINK
also thanks for making me get out of the bed to post this a-hole
Posted on 6/17/14 at 12:42 am to WeeWee
quote:
Yeah. Many of them from such rock solid climate science journals such as "Iron & Steel Technology" and "Economics Bulletin". I'm not kidding.
again do you actually read and consider the arguments or do you just disapprove it because you dislike the publication, author etc.?
? That IS the argument. The 1350+ paper study by Popular Technology includes papers from journals that aren't even remotely related to climate science. Economists aren't qualified to speak as experts on climate scientists any more than the guy who takes your order at McDonald's.
This post was edited on 6/17/14 at 12:43 am
Posted on 6/17/14 at 12:51 am to WeeWee
quote:
the climate change reconsidered ones.
Sorry, I don't read publications by the Heartland Institute.
quote:
here is the link to the 1000+ papers offering evidence for skeptism.
In case you hadn't already figured it out - I HAVE the link already. And I've read through i.
quote:
An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers (PDF)
(Iron & Steel Technology, Volume 5, Number 7, pp. 87-98, July 2008)
- John Stubbles
Seriously? They are pulling articles from Iron & Steel Technology - and you can't see they are full of shite? At least 25 of the publications are in ECONOMICS journals. Economics journals provide excellent peer review - for ECONOMICS articles. Over 60 of them are by the Idsos.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News