The Unmentionable

Howey said:
Ummm...Are you saying it's not the consensus of a majority of scientists that climate change is real?
Click to expand...

No the freak is saying that right wing turds decided to have a tantrum, because the truth in stark terms makes them shiver in fear. All we need to do is make it sound nicer and not so scary.
 
Superfreak said:
Your problem is that the 'science' that 'supports' man made global warming is nonsense. The computer models they created have been shown time and again to be wrong. Yet idiots still proclaim that it is CONSENSUS! or '97% of scientists agree' (which is nonsense)

Get back to providing REAL ideas and solutions and stop buying into the fear mongers nonsense. The AGW fear mongers have done more to hurt the advancement of clean energy than anyone. They have focused so much on the blame man game that people get turned off on the topic of what we can do to reduce ACTUAL pollutants.

Darla wonders why the younger generation on here doesn't talk about it. The reason is that idiots like her and you try to shut down the conversation if anyone dares to criticize the fear mongers tactics and 'conclusions'. The ones undermining the ACTUAL science are people like you and Darla.
Click to expand...
You're problem is that you're a scientific neophyte who not only doesn't know how to objectively evaluate data with out letting your own biases color your conclusions but you don't even know how to model an observation objectively. You just cherry pick data that suits you're own point of view.
 
The Dude said:
I won't listen to somebody getting excited about the science unless their carbon footprint is way smaller than mine.
Spare me the step over a homeless person to spit on someone wearing fur outrage.
Click to expand...
I hear you. I can live with out the hyperbole and the hypocrisy too but that doesn't have anything to do with the science.
 
The Dude said:
I won't listen to somebody getting excited about the science unless their carbon footprint is way smaller than mine.
Spare me the step over a homeless person to spit on someone wearing fur outrage.
Click to expand...

Not to be a jerk....I really don't mean to be insulting by this, so don't take it that way...but does your heavy investment in the oil industry have anything to do with your attitude?

As far as my carbon footprint? It could be better...we still use CFL'S in our house...waiting for LED's to come down in price...we all have four cylinder fairly economical cars....we recycle plastic and glass....but we do burn paper. We have oil/hot water heat. All of our TV's in the house except the one in the basement are LCD's with one LED. The one in the basement is the only CRT we have and we barely use it. Do I qualify?
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO... the entire premise of 'man is causing global catastrophy' is based on FEAR. They scare the morons into following the political agenda.
Click to expand...
I agree that there is alarmism and hyperbole by supporters of policy changes based upon ACC and that it can be counter productive but that's an issue of public policy and not science but if you we're scientifically literate you would all ready be aware of that.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I agree that there is alarmism and hyperbole by supporters of policy changes based upon ACC and that it can be counter productive but that's an issue of public policy and not science but if you we're scientifically literate you would all ready be aware of that.
Click to expand...

I think the left should bail on the AGW argument in general. It has become too ideological & too polarizing, and too easy to dismiss.

There are more compelling, tangible & immediate reasons for accelerating the transition to domestic & renewable resources. National security is at the top of that list, but it would also be hugely beneficial economically.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO... the entire premise of 'man is causing global catastrophy' is based on FEAR. They scare the morons into following the political agenda.
Click to expand...

Stephen Schneider from 1989.

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48,
Click to expand...

Looks like they opted for being effective.
 
Steelplate said:
Not to be a jerk....I really don't mean to be insulting by this, so don't take it that way...but does your heavy investment in the oil industry have anything to do with your attitude?

As far as my carbon footprint? It could be better...we still use CFL'S in our house...waiting for LED's to come down in price...we all have four cylinder fairly economical cars....we recycle plastic and glass....but we do burn paper. We have oil/hot water heat. All of our TV's in the house except the one in the basement are LCD's with one LED. The one in the basement is the only CRT we have and we barely use it. Do I qualify?
Click to expand...

Of course it does, 28 years in corp finance fot texaco and chevron. But I drive a civic 39 mpg on the highway, live in a house that is below average sq ft, and I drive on vacation (for religious reason),
 
Bfgrn said:
No the freak is saying that right wing turds decided to have a tantrum, because the truth in stark terms makes them shiver in fear. All we need to do is make it sound nicer and not so scary.
Click to expand...
Not neccesarily. The implications of ACC are serious and should be managed as such but can you tell me of any public policies in regards to ACC that are quarenteed to work and either won't waste large sums of money?

The problem with the ACC issue is not one of science. That's where the science deniers are just rationalising morons. It is an extremely complex public policies issue and though there may be a consensus by the scientific community about ACC there isn't one about what the corrective actions ought to be!
 
Thing1 said:
I think the left should bail on the AGW argument in general. It has become too ideological & too polarizing, and too easy to dismiss.
Click to expand...

That's asinine. AGW isn't controversial.

Thing1 said:
There are more compelling, tangible & immediate reasons for accelerating the transition to domestic & renewable resources. National security is at the top of that list, but it would also be hugely beneficial economically.
Click to expand...

Maybe there are reasons you can come up with why right-wing denialists would support cleaner sources of energy, most of which require appeals to their personal self-interest, but that doesn't make them more compelling than to avoid global human suffering on a massive scale.
 
From the EU energy summit Wednesday

So is it true when German liberal MEP Holger Krahmer (Free Democrats) is delighted that “the EU summit heralds the end of climate hysteria” and that a “new realism” is now in place? His conservative colleague Herbert Reul (Christian Democrats), head of the parliamentary CDU in the European Parliament, openly calls for a “U-turn in energy policy. It can no longer be preferentially aligned to climate change “.
http://www.thegwpf.org/eu-energy-summit-climate-protection-important-anymore/
Click to expand...
 
Thing1 said:
I don't care if AGW can be proven or not (for the record, it probably can't be). Why is it that token measures on emissions standards seem to tick people off, but the fact that the oil industry owns Washington and has kept alternatives down for decades doesn't even warrant a mild comment of protest?

The fact is, we could be making a better effort to live in harmony with the only planet that will sustain us, instead of trashing it & exhausting its finite resources with little to no regard for even one generation into the future.
Click to expand...


Not surprising 7 pinheads agree with you....

AGW won't be proven because its a hoax.

Token measures on emissions standards just ain't worth the cost...its like cutting your leg off because of an ingrown toenail....

Oil industry owns Washington ? Total liberal bullshit (proven by the 'thanks' you got)

and we don't trash our planet, we use what we need as we need it....as does every living thing that exists

We couldn't exhaust the resources of this planet if we tried, some we haven't even discovered yet and the planet renews itself constantly....
 
Thing1 said:
I think the left should bail on the AGW argument in general. It has become too ideological & too polarizing, and too easy to dismiss.

There are more compelling, tangible & immediate reasons for accelerating the transition to domestic & renewable resources. National security is at the top of that list, but it would also be hugely beneficial economically.
Click to expand...
You mean ACC (Antrhopogenic Climate Change) and as a politcal issue I think both sides need to face up to some hard facts. Fact #1 is the factual scientifica consensus about ACC and Fact #2 is that there is no scientific consensus as to what corrective measures should be implemented as public policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top