Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent)   Global warming zealots now urging the world to go to Plan B to address their fantasy   (independent.co.uk) divider line 245
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

5281 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Jan 2009 at 9:27 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



245 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-01-01 10:34:46 PM  
/reads PoopStains profile

Yeah, that explains it. So which role, Harris or Klebold, are you going to take in the next big school shooting?
 
2009-01-01 10:38:31 PM  
What warming? Temps have been trending downward this entire millennium!
i21.photobucket.com
See?
 
2009-01-01 10:39:47 PM  
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between the global warming zealots and the flat out deniers but I wonder, which side has more of a financial stake in proving their opinion?
 
2009-01-01 10:41:06 PM  
cryinoutloud: rppp01a: The planet won't collapse. Dumbasses. The problem will be the lack of resources for HUMANS. If humans don't have a healthy ecosystem, they don't eat. They don't have water to drink. They don't have energy. They don't have wood for shelter or air to breath.

This happens over and over again through out the history of mankind. Humans have done it to themselves in the past and are hell bent on doing it again. We just aren't that smart.

There's a lot of folks who believe that we're very close already to an ecological collapse--not just in certain areas, but world-wide. Where we've farked up the balance of nature so badly that essentially, most of the natural functions of the planet will stop or be severely impacted. We have, for instance, already created "dead zones" in many places in the ocean, and they're getting bigger all the time. And once it's dead, baby, it takes millions of years to restore itself--and that's only if it were left completely alone.

What do you call a "collapse?"


While I don't think we are on the verge of ecological collapse, I do believe that mankind has overpopulated the planet. Forget oil, food wars may loom in the latter half of this century.
 
2009-01-01 10:42:07 PM  
Farker Soze: Yeah, that explains it. So which role, Harris or Klebold, are you going to take in the next big school shooting?

You have a handle based on another TF'ers and you question me?

I'm 43. There are no school shootings in my future. There's nothing in my future. This is all I have.

Thanks for playing. Here's my trademark:

Go fark yourself.
 
2009-01-01 10:42:20 PM  
PoopStain: BumpInTheNight: If you are going to verbally shiat all over a topic and I disagree with you, I'll respond. Beyond that the first time you told me to go fark myself was pretty much the last point where you should expect any sort of civility :P You could always just set me on ignore if you can't stand to see the text I type that badly. I hope you don't though, as between yourself and Linux_yes you've become rather entertaining chew toys with all the absolutely embarrassing opinions you guys insist on debating.

My God, you're still here.

Go fark that lady friend in your profile. Dicks don't have opinions beyond what they are sticking themselves into, so you probably can't disappoint her with that.

Canadian to boot. At least that explains your fascination with me.


Meh, you choose to come into a global warming thread and say that humans have no ability to impact the world around us on a global climatic scale. I'm calling you an idiot for that opinion. You in turn declare that you've made me out to be some sort of personal demon (which is cute) rather then try to counter said arguments after stating the original baseless and again fundamentally flawed opinion you have concerning the topic of this thread.

Each time you are faced with an argument to an opinion you have in which you cannot defend or refute you seem to either start tossing insults or fall back on the contents of your profile in an effort to end things. I suppose headcrab from your perspective would be some what accurate as yup I won't let up against those tactics.

Bottom line is you say something like humans can't affect nature and not expect people to disagree with you? That's just plain delusional.
 
2009-01-01 10:43:07 PM  
I like where this thread is going
www.independent.co.uk
 
2009-01-01 10:44:34 PM  
"Professor James Lovelock, a geo-scientist and author of the Gaia hypothesis, in which the Earth is a quasi-living organism, is one of those who is less optimistic."


K, I don't care what you think about global warming, this guy is a nucking futcase on the lunatic fringe.

And birds of a feather fark together.
 
2009-01-01 10:45:16 PM  
Here comes the science.

/or is it dogma?
 
2009-01-01 10:46:41 PM  
rppp01a: cryinoutloud: rppp01a: The
....

While I don't think we are on the verge of ecological collapse, I do believe that mankind has overpopulated the planet. Forget oil, food wars may loom in the latter half of this century.


Not if things warm up enough that Siberia becomes a new Fertile Crescent spanning a quarter of the globe.
 
2009-01-01 10:48:13 PM  
rppp01a: cryinoutloud: rppp01a: The planet won't collapse. Dumbasses. The problem will be the lack of resources for HUMANS. If humans don't have a healthy ecosystem, they don't eat. They don't have water to drink. They don't have energy. They don't have wood for shelter or air to breath.

This happens over and over again through out the history of mankind. Humans have done it to themselves in the past and are hell bent on doing it again. We just aren't that smart.

There's a lot of folks who believe that we're very close already to an ecological collapse--not just in certain areas, but world-wide. Where we've farked up the balance of nature so badly that essentially, most of the natural functions of the planet will stop or be severely impacted. We have, for instance, already created "dead zones" in many places in the ocean, and they're getting bigger all the time. And once it's dead, baby, it takes millions of years to restore itself--and that's only if it were left completely alone.

What do you call a "collapse?"

While I don't think we are on the verge of ecological collapse, I do believe that mankind has overpopulated the planet. Forget oil, food wars may loom in the latter half of this century.


I have to remember a statement that was made about London long ago which was "It can't keep growing at the rate it is as there'd be simply no place to keep all the horses.", obviously we've found a work around for that and hopefully on a global scale the food will work out much the same way.
 
2009-01-01 10:52:46 PM  
PoopStain: Klingon Penis: Do I have to wait 30 years to decide whether Bush is a good president, too?

Since Lincoln was considered a bad President in his time, you might.

History has an odd way of presenting itself. One of the reasons this global warming bullshiat needs to be taken with a grain of salt.


Lincoln revered after his presidency = global warming is bullshiat.

That is mental gymnastics in zero gravity.
 
2009-01-01 10:53:59 PM  
Plan A: By means of bad data, Frighten everyone into paying a tithe to our science overlords.
Problem: Everyone realized there was more hype than data, didn't want to pay.

Plan B: By means of bad data and questionable field operations, frighten everyone into paying a tithe to our science overlords.
Problem: People will expect results these projects wont be able to give.

I'm glad to hear that (after a decade) they are finally ready to move past biatching and moaning about the apocalypse towards some sort of plan... but I fear the plan will just be a ruse to let them continue biatching and moaning on our dime.
 
2009-01-01 10:56:24 PM  
BumpInTheNight: Meh, you choose to come into a global warming thread and say that humans have no ability to impact the world around us on a global climatic scale.

We don't. I still stand by the statement.

Bottom line is you say something like humans can't affect nature and not expect people to disagree with you? That's just plain delusional.

Prove to me that we can. You haven't proven we've ruined it yet, but you want me to trust your ability to "fix" it?

No thanks.
 
2009-01-01 10:56:24 PM  
We may not have to worry about injecting particulates of any kind into the atmosphere... Gaia/Yellowstone may do it for us... (new window)
 
2009-01-01 10:56:44 PM  
Obdicut: PoopStain: Global warming is a goddamn business boon for fake environmentalists. For people who want to make money. No. Other. Reason.

Can you please name two papers published in the past ten years in peer-reviewed climatology journals that dispute AGW?

Can you please name one scientific organization that is not funded by industry or a conservative think tank that disputes AGW?


And who benefits from AGW alarmism? If AGW climatologists came out and said AGW isn't happening, how many of them do you suppose would be out of a job the next day?

Works both ways you know.

/Just sayin
 
2009-01-01 10:58:44 PM  
Whatsleft: Lincoln revered after his presidency = global warming is bullshiat.

That is mental gymnastics in zero gravity.


He/she brought up Bush. Not me. You should be criticizing the original post for an unwarranted political reference.

But you're an idiot, so I doubt that will happen.
 
2009-01-01 10:59:40 PM  
You can't grow crops on a cold planet but you can on a warm one.
 
2009-01-01 10:59:46 PM  
way south: Plan A: By means of bad data, Frighten everyone into paying a tithe to our science overlords.
Problem: Everyone realized there was more hype than data, didn't want to pay.

Plan B: By means of bad data and questionable field operations, frighten everyone into paying a tithe to our science overlords.
Problem: People will expect results these projects wont be able to give.

I'm glad to hear that (after a decade) they are finally ready to move past biatching and moaning about the apocalypse towards some sort of plan... but I fear the plan will just be a ruse to let them continue biatching and moaning on our dime.


Down with science, burn the heretics! We must keep them on tighter leashes, they cannot be allowed to keep thinking in the long term about projects they've been commissioned to make for us. Things must be made faster and cheaper at any cost, even your unborn child's future.

But seriously, are you one of the 'humans can't possibly ruin such a huge thing as the planet' as well? Or do you just think that this particular set of activities that's being examined is possibly unwarranted?
 
2009-01-01 10:59:53 PM  
PoopStain: I'm 43. There are no school shootings in my future. There's nothing in my future. This is all I have.

I'd say sorry but as you sound like someone a third that age I think it's hardly my faux pas. Do us both a favor then, forgo the shooting spree and just eat a bullet.
 
2009-01-01 11:01:18 PM  
Nuclear Winter will fix Global Warming.
 
2009-01-01 11:01:27 PM  
Sweet.

2010, Hollywood:

They told mankind that they were saving the planet, but little did they know, they were killing it.

ECO-EVENT 666

Mothernature is a coldhearted biatch!
 
2009-01-01 11:01:44 PM  
oldebayer: Meanwhile, anti-Global Warming zealots are up to Plan G. Or is it H?

I think you mean "rational, non-hysterical people" and no, we're still on plan A: do nothing about nothing.
 
2009-01-01 11:05:17 PM  
IStateTheObvious: And who benefits from AGW alarmism? If AGW climatologists came out and said AGW isn't happening, how many of them do you suppose would be out of a job the next day?

Since this kind of research is either done through University professors or large scientific organizations that do more than just study AGW, I would say somewhere between 0-1 people would lose their job the next day.

You have absolutely no idea how scientific research is conducted, do you?
 
2009-01-01 11:05:53 PM  
PoopStain: BumpInTheNight: Meh, you choose to come into a global warming thread and say that humans have no ability to impact the world around us on a global climatic scale.

We don't. I still stand by the statement.

Bottom line is you say something like humans can't affect nature and not expect people to disagree with you? That's just plain delusional.

Prove to me that we can. You haven't proven we've ruined it yet, but you want me to trust your ability to "fix" it?

No thanks.


I think there is a little concept called nuclear winter you outta look up. That's indeed a purposeful method but to act like we're incapable of irreversibly harming the environment to the point where our race and possibly the rest die off is as short sighted as suggesting there is nothing wrong with how we're behaving towards it right now.

I'm not going to try to back the point where its 'been ruined' or not as I honestly haven't given it that much attention nor am I that qualified. I do listen to qualified people though and respect their opinions, amazingly when it comes to counter arguments to climate change its always referencing one or two peripheral scientists who's opinion is almost universally met with disagreement by the rest of the community. That's the best argument towards apathy: The losers of the nerd's told you its okay to ignore it.
 
2009-01-01 11:08:22 PM  
way south: Plan A: By means of bad data, Frighten everyone into paying a tithe to our fake science overlords.
Problem: Everyone realized there was more hype than data, didn't want to pay.

Plan B: By means of bad data and questionable field operations, frighten everyone into paying a tithe to our fake science overlords.
Problem: People will expect results these projects wont be able to give.

I'm glad to hear that (after a decade) they are finally ready to move past biatching and moaning about the apocalypse towards some sort of plan... but I fear the plan will just be a ruse to let them continue biatching and moaning on our dime.


FTFY
 
2009-01-01 11:11:03 PM  
Malbar: oldebayer: Meanwhile, anti-Global Warming zealots are up to Plan G. Or is it H?

I think you mean "rational, non-hysterical people" and no, we're still on plan A: do nothing about nothing.


You should travel to China or India to see what "nothing" can do to the environment. Hell, maybe even a boat ride through the rivers of Ohio would do it.
 
2009-01-01 11:13:36 PM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay: IStateTheObvious: And who benefits from AGW alarmism? If AGW climatologists came out and said AGW isn't happening, how many of them do you suppose would be out of a job the next day?

Since this kind of research is either done through University professors or large scientific organizations that do more than just study AGW, I would say somewhere between 0-1 people would lose their job the next day.

You have absolutely no idea how scientific research is conducted, do you?


I know governments spend billions with universities and large scientific organizations to research AGW. I know that if AGW was proven false that that money train would end. And then those universities and large scientific organizations would no longer have need of a scientist that was proven to be not too good of a scientist. So many more than 0-1 would lose their jobs.

You have absolutely no idea how business is conducted, do you?
 
2009-01-01 11:14:05 PM  
PoopStain: Whatsleft: Lincoln revered after his presidency = global warming is bullshiat.

That is mental gymnastics in zero gravity.

He/she brought up Bush. Not me. You should be criticizing the original post for an unwarranted political reference.

But you're an idiot, so I doubt that will happen.


So when you said "global warming bullshiat" you were being sarcastic? My bad.
 
2009-01-01 11:14:17 PM  
way south: By means of bad data

It's not necessarily that it's all bad data, it's that they filter out all the stuff that doesn't support their conclusions. Further to this, I find it disheartening that government organisations host researchers who continually refuse to expose the methodologies they used in their data analysis.

There's literally billions of dollars on the line here, and it wouldn't help you to get more funding if you said anything against the status quo. Taking the con on these things should be part of the scientific process and for whatever reason, it just isn't. Nobody will fund that research and certainly nobody will publish it.
 
2009-01-01 11:14:57 PM  
BTW...I am not advocating the issue either way. I personally don't care. But if you want to follow the money train in one direction, it only makes sense to look at the other direction too.
 
2009-01-01 11:15:20 PM  
Jay Dee: I like where this thread is going

damn you!
 
2009-01-01 11:19:47 PM  
Farker Soze: /reads PoopStains profile

Yeah, that explains it. So which role, Harris or Klebold, are you going to take in the next big school shooting?


No he will stick to what has been inflicted upon him - raping his children.
 
2009-01-01 11:21:47 PM  
I don't think you global warming nuts are taking this as a real threat. I am tired of the bullshiat big ideas that these farktard scientists say we need to do. The way to fix this is easy. Kill every other human. That's the only thing that will really work. That's it. No getting rid of SUV's, no shutting down coal plants, or what ever. KILL HALF OF HUMANITY. You global warming nuts don't like people anyway, and your stupid messing with the planet will do it anyway, so why put it off?

Until you environmentalists and global warming nuts start killing, I just don't think you take this threat as seriously as you *claim* it is. Man up. If it is really a threat, do the right thing.
 
2009-01-01 11:22:41 PM  
uselessgit: I don't think you global warming nuts are taking this as a real threat. I am tired of the bullshiat big ideas that these farktard scientists say we need to do. The way to fix this is easy. Kill every other human. That's the only thing that will really work. That's it. No getting rid of SUV's, no shutting down coal plants, or what ever. KILL HALF OF HUMANITY. You global warming nuts don't like people anyway, and your stupid messing with the planet will do it anyway, so why put it off?

Until you environmentalists and global warming nuts start killing, I just don't think you take this threat as seriously as you *claim* it is. Man up. If it is really a threat, do the right thing.


You go first. ;)
 
2009-01-01 11:24:34 PM  
IStateTheObvious: I know governments spend billions with universities and large scientific organizations to research AGW. I know that if AGW was proven false that that money train would end.

No, it wouldn't. There are plenty of unanswered questions about how the climate works - if a major scientific theory like AGW were overturned, it would open up a new area of research.

And then those universities and large scientific organizations would no longer have need of a scientist that was proven to be not too good of a scientist.

Again, I reiterate: you have no idea how scientific research is conducted, do you? Scientific theories are overturned every single day. AGW being overturned would be an incredible upset. It would not reflect on the worth of the scientist; nobody would be fired for supporting a well-supported theory, even if it later was found to be false.

This elementary-school-level understanding of how science is conducted is what turns this issue into such a political nightmare. You've demonstrated that you don't have the slightest clue of how science is funded, who performs it, why, or what is even considered to have scientific merit.
 
2009-01-01 11:25:58 PM  
I don't believe in fancy "studies" or "experiments" to form my opinions. My yardstick is: whatever Rush Limbaugh says, reality is pretty much the opposite. Well, after listening to a few of his shows this last month, I'm stocking up on sunblock and Gatorade.
 
2009-01-01 11:30:39 PM  
Everyone needs to understand the history and the hidden purpose behind the global warming movement. Yes, a movement. The entire scheme was organized and now supported by people and groups that have what I consider very sinister ideas of what our future should be. Don't take my word for any of this, use the Internet and you will see that everything I have posted here is true and accurate.

Michael Oppenheimer -

In the late 1980's, Dr. Oppenheimer and a handful of other scientists organized two workshops under the auspices of the United Nations that helped precipitate the negotiations that resulted in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (signed at the 1992 Earth Summit) and the Kyoto Protocol. During that period, he co-founded the Climate Action Network.

http://www.princeton.edu/step/people/faculty/michael-oppenheimer

You should know this man's agenda and he has been kind enough to vocalize it on many occasions:

We must impose a low standard of living on the world.
"[T]he only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don't suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them."
Source: "Environmental Quotes," Freedom Alert, September/October 2001, page 13.
Don't take my word for it, google: Michael Oppenheimer "not another United States" and see for yourself.
People in the US got upset when Obama said it was tine to redistribute the wealth across America, Oppenheimer was to distribute it across the globe. And he is not alone in thinking that way
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing - are not sustainable."
- Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
The Affluent Middle Class?? That is the target and it includes most of us in America.

Another piece of the Global Warming Agenda is to create one worldwide government and the UN is ready and willing to serve:

"The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable,
indeed a sacred principle of international relations.
It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to
the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."
- UN Commission on Global Governance report

"We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis..."
- David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member

People like Zafler, Chimp-Ninja, Jon Sno and a few others will say that the political agenda doesn't matter because the science behind it is true. That is not the case:

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
- Sir John Houghton,
first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,


One of the think tanks that worked with the IPCC is called the Rome Group. They have a website, you can go there and see that what I am posting about them is true. I encourage you to go to their website because some of their ideas are beyond scary.

"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today's problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time."
- Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution

"A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.
Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism can permit mankind to negotiate this transition."
- Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

There is much more of the "pie in the sky" attitude on their website. Check it out.

Many of the "environmental groups that support the IPCC findings are "transformed" leftists who felt a void when Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union. Their goal remains the same - destroy democracy - but they have painted it "green" to win support:

"The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable. Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures. More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity..Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that
address the root causes of poverty and environmental degradation are required and they are required now."
- from the Earth Charter website

How does poverty fit into a discussion about the environment?? It doesn't, but it makes it easier to get ANY message across if you paint it green.


"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Program

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation."
- Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies


"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land."
- David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

At least this guy doesn't try to hide his feelings all that much.


"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it's full complement of species, returning throughout the world."
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

I don't know how this guy is going to bring back the Dodo bird, but that is his goal.

"While the death of young men in war is unfortunate, it is no more serious than the touching of mountains and wilderness areas by humankind."
[David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth
and former executive director of the Sierra Club]

I don't know about you, but these folks have some extremely radical ideas and they are promoting them by invoking the environment. There are problems with this planet, its governments and its people. But I don't think any rational person would want to go down the paths that these folks want us to.

They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world. The IPCC has already stated that the rich countries need to give money to the poor countries to help them establish a green society.

I know that this post is going to cause all sorts of name calling and attacks on me but watch how many attacks there are on what I said. I am sure that somebody will post a photo of a man wearing a tinfoil cap and others will say that I see a conspiracy behind every bush. I will respond to all of them now. Go to google and see if anything that I posted is not true. Remove the blinders and look at the subject with an open mind. Where is the catastrophe?? There hasn't been one and there won't be one based on global warming.

Are the people here who support the global warming movement anti-capitalists? Are they anti-democracy? Are they believers in one big global government?? I don't know. They could simply be gullible people who have not dug deep enough into the movement to find out that the entire thing stinks.


Don't take my word for it. Investigate on your own. Look and see how many of the people pushing global warming are in favor of a global government.


I won't be responding to the hecklers. They are just dupes.
 
2009-01-01 11:31:04 PM  
Whatsleft: So when you said "global warming bullshiat" you were being sarcastic? My bad.

What in the holy farking hell are you talking about?

Global warming is bullshiat. It has nothing to do with Bush. You're a goddamn farking retard.

BumpInTheNight: You go first. ;)

God, I can only hope it's all of you first. If there's a "human tax" in the future, you'd better believe I can bag enough to compensate for my own existence.
 
2009-01-01 11:35:11 PM  
Dear moron scientists,

You were clearly wrong, now face it and shut up.

Signed,
Intelligent people
 
2009-01-01 11:38:38 PM  
veryequiped: Dear moron scientists,

You were clearly wrong, now face it and shut up.

Signed,
Intelligent people


It's all in the odds. Scientists take different positions on subjects all the time. Only one group can be right. The rest accept it and move on.

Besides, there is nothing scientific about the global warming movement. Real scientists conduct experiments, these guys did not. Computer models are not experiments, they are models.
 
2009-01-01 11:40:55 PM  
nicksteel: Everyone needs to understand the history and the hidden purpose behind the global warming movement. Yes, a movement. The entire scheme was...

Too long and tasted like tinfoil. If it was economically cheaper to go with green initiatives then the current ones, believe me there wouldn't be as much dis-information floating around about these concepts. Btw uncontexted and cherry picked quotes do not a convincing argument make.

One thing I'll mention though is I expect a world government inevitably, its one of many steps forward towards the human race spreading out into the stars like a sweet sweet star trek world of blue skinned womens and holodecks.
 
2009-01-01 11:43:09 PM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay: IStateTheObvious: I know governments spend billions with universities and large scientific organizations to research AGW. I know that if AGW was proven false that that money train would end.

No, it wouldn't. There are plenty of unanswered questions about how the climate works - if a major scientific theory like AGW were overturned, it would open up a new area of research.


Yes it would...we are talking specifically about AGW funding. Certainly there are other areas they could research. But if they were proven to be frauds or just bad scientists, who would want those same people to research other climate issues? And without the "we're all going to die" issues, the other money coming in would be a pittance compared to what they are getting now. So where is the money going to come from to pay these scientists? Certainly not as big an issue at universities as organizations, but thats a fact of doing business. You have to be able to pay your employees, otherwise you lay them off (fire them).

But you just stated the reason I'm not on the AGW bandwagon. If you don't understand exactly how the climate works, how can you say definitively that AGW is happening? I consider myself a fairly open minded individual, and there are plenty of scientists that dispute AGW. Who am I to judge who is right or wrong? I'm not a scientist. Are you?

And then those universities and large scientific organizations would no longer have need of a scientist that was proven to be not too good of a scientist.

Again, I reiterate: you have no idea how scientific research is conducted, do you? Scientific theories are overturned every single day. AGW being overturned would be an incredible upset. It would not reflect on the worth of the scientist; nobody would be fired for supporting a well-supported theory, even if it later was found to be false.


So science is just going along with what most everyone else is doing? Funny, I thought it had something to do with proving theories through experimentation.

This elementary-school-level understanding of how science is conducted is what turns this issue into such a political nightmare. You've demonstrated that you don't have the slightest clue of how science is funded, who performs it, why, or what is even considered to have scientific merit.


I never claimed to know all the ins and outs of how funding is done, beyond that most of it is taxpayer funds. I do run my own business however, and can tell you how business works. (Well, is SUPPOSED to work...noone's offered to bail me out...but then again I'm not going to go asking for a handout either.) But a scientist is an employee. If they prove that they are incompetent, frauds, or even just jumped on the bandwagon because thats the popular thing to do, they are bad employees and bad for the bottom line.
 
2009-01-01 11:43:16 PM  
I stopped reading the articles on this. Was there recently an experiment or something that conclusively validates or invalidates global warming theory? How does the evidence stack up on both sides?
 
2009-01-01 11:43:21 PM  
BumpInTheNight: nicksteel: Everyone needs to understand the history and the hidden purpose behind the global warming movement. Yes, a movement. The entire scheme was...

Too long and tasted like tinfoil. If it was economically cheaper to go with green initiatives then the current ones, believe me there wouldn't be as much dis-information floating around about these concepts. Btw uncontexted and cherry picked quotes do not a convincing argument make.

One thing I'll mention though is I expect a world government inevitably, its one of many steps forward towards the human race spreading out into the stars like a sweet sweet star trek world of blue skinned womens and holodecks.


Yea, and how many centuries away until James Tobias Kirk shows up on the scene.

Do your own research and then tell me I am wrong. Those quotes (all true and accurate) provide a look into the thinking of the people heading the movement.
 
2009-01-01 11:45:33 PM  
nicksteel: "Computer models are not experiments, they are models."

Pardon me for stripping away the rest of the crazy, but this particular one is too juicy to ignore. I can't even quite put it into words on how that makes you look, but let's just say credibility has been forever damaged.
 
2009-01-01 11:48:13 PM  
Gigglecream: I stopped reading the articles on this. Was there recently an experiment or something that conclusively validates or invalidates global warming theory? How does the evidence stack up on both sides?

No experiments have been conducted. The evidence for global warming (temperature readings) have been totally screwed up. The boys at NASA used September data for both September and October. God knows how many times they have done something like that. On the anti-warming side, the evidence is that the temp has risen less than one degree in the last 100 years. What that is, is a stable system.

The boys in the movement will tell you that it's going to get worse, but they've got no proof. The have no evidence. They just have their dream of a global government and the dismantling of the USA and democracy everywhere.
 
2009-01-01 11:50:48 PM  
BumpInTheNight: nicksteel: "Computer models are not experiments, they are models."

Pardon me for stripping away the rest of the crazy, but this particular one is too juicy to ignore. I can't even quite put it into words on how that makes you look, but let's just say credibility has been forever damaged.


Do you believe that computer models are as good as a real experiment? Models are based upon certain assumptions, the assumptions of the person running the model. That makes the end result biased. A real experiment is not based upon assumptions.
 
2009-01-01 11:52:01 PM  
nicksteel: BumpInTheNight: nicksteel: Everyone needs to understand the history and the hidden purpose behind the global warming movement. Yes, a movement. The entire scheme was...

Too long and tasted like tinfoil. If it was economically cheaper to go with green initiatives then the current ones, believe me there wouldn't be as much dis-information floating around about these concepts. Btw uncontexted and cherry picked quotes do not a convincing argument make.

One thing I'll mention though is I expect a world government inevitably, its one of many steps forward towards the human race spreading out into the stars like a sweet sweet star trek world of blue skinned womens and holodecks.

Yea, and how many centuries away until James Tobias Kirk shows up on the scene.

Do your own research and then tell me I am wrong. Those quotes (all true and accurate) provide a look into the thinking of the people heading the movement.


Yup, they want to collectively ensure the planet on a global scale is better off the it is in the hands of a bunch of individual, greedy and gluttonous first world nations who'd sooner nuke one another then make concessions to fix a problem far too large for any individual to accomplish.

I don't think it'd take a single governing body to get good things rolling on this hunk 'o rock, but I will say that leaving the decisions on how and when to implement environmentally neutral concepts vs cheaper but damaging ones in the hands of people who's whole job is to stay in power by providing as many short term solutions as possible to a bunch of near-sighted creatures as us is just not cutting it. Again, the second you find its cheaper to reverse course then to continue on the same path is the same one you see all the misinformation disappear and plans start moving foward. It all comes down to the dollar.
 
2009-01-01 11:52:28 PM  
I know governments spend billions with universities and large scientific organizations to research AGW. I know that if AGW was proven false that that money train would end. And then those universities and large scientific organizations would no longer have need of a scientist that was proven to be not too good of a scientist. So many more than 0-1 would lose their jobs.

You mean the ones who get their grants signed off on by people who were appointed by that noted AGW alarmist, George W. Bush?

This is one of the most often repeated, yet easiest refuted denier claim. That somehow people's paychecks are tied to repeating a scientific lie, and that there's a conspiracy about it.

First off, the data is public. Anyone can refute a B.S. claim, and no one has ever won the Nobel prize by repeating a party line. The ones who make a name for themselves do so by proving stuff *wrong*

Secondly, scientists make GS wages no matter what they say. They can be pretty good if you're an administrator, but is hardly in the "hookers and blow" category.

Third, there's this whole "tenure" thing in academia, which is specifically designed to keep people from being P.C. for fear of being fired.

And lastly, if you're going to argue that climatologists are saying stuff just to get grant money, then you're arguing that the powers that be WANT to promote global warming.

It's a stupid, busted talking point.

img148.imageshack.us
 
Displayed 50 of 245 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report