Number of studies doesn’t equal number of scientists. One bad scientist publishing 300 studies isn’t better than a team of good scientists publishing one study.
And even further, number of studies can be very misleading. When the government picks sides in a scientific debate, it will only fund studies designed to prove the itself right.
I’d question what the 65% of the studies that didn’t get included in that 97% actually said.
Even using the search terms “climate change” and “global warming” is biased to begin with excluding studies that don’t use the buzz words of the believer crowd.
@ beans the reason I find it to be complete irony is Jefferson is the poster boy for the so called constitutionalists . There were so many inconsistent behaviors from our founding fathers . There was a big fear that Washington would initiate a coup d’etat. He was well liked , the wealthiest man in America , and connected big time to the Military
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ beans the reason I find it to be complete irony is Jefferson is the poster boy for the so called constitutionalists . There were so many inconsistent behaviors from our founding fathers . There was a big fear that Washington would initiate a coup d’etat. He was well liked , the wealthiest man in America , and connected big time to the Military [/quote]
Think for a second about who you are talking about… Of course they thought something like that was possible, if not likely. Whether it happened then or in 200 years, they knew something like that would more likely than not happen to the government of the United States of America.
Hence shit like: the way the Constitution was written, checks and balances, and that fancy piece of paper modern administrations like to piss all over, the Bill of Rights.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ beans the reason I find it to be complete irony is Jefferson is the poster boy for the so called constitutionalists . There were so many inconsistent behaviors from our founding fathers . There was a big fear that Washington would initiate a coup d’etat. He was well liked , the wealthiest man in America , and connected big time to the Military [/quote]
Think for a second about who you are talking about… Of course they thought something like that was possible, if not likely. Whether it happened then or in 200 years, they knew something like that would more likely than not happen to the government of the United States of America.
Hence shit like: the way the Constitution was written, checks and balances, and that fancy piece of paper modern administrations like to piss all over, the Bill of Rights. [/quote]
Term limits for Presidents did not happen until 1951 22nd amendment . I agree there is little to what was our constitutional rights left they have been all corrupted
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Easy solution to all those that Do Not believe that we are a large part of the increased climate change:
Take them out into their Escalades, Navigators, Hummers and Land Rovers. Lock them in so they cannot get out, turn on the engine and
then “Stick a Banana in their TailPipe” and see how long they last before a slow death takes them to whatever heaven they believe in.
People seem to forget that this little sphere we live on is a CLOSED ECO SYSTEM ! There will be no place to hide when it all comes
crashing down…[/quote]
preach it Bro :)[/quote]
LOL.
Same thing that was said about global cooling and the next Ice Age…
Therefore, you must believe in both global cooling and warming or you deserve to die.[/quote]
The new term is Climate change and I personally rember the winter of either 77 it was fucking cold with 70 mph winds for almost a week . the worst winter storm I have ever seen . It was called an artic storm
Some of, if not most of, the legislation is probably not doing a whole lot over there, but this is an area that they have been addressing since the late 1970’s, so it’s not exactly a new phenomenon over there. Enforcing the legislation seems to be a problem, but putting it on the books is not.
And here’s some stuff about India and Brazil as well. Bet you didn’t know that part of Brazil’s constitution provides for the specific right to an “?ecologically balanced environment” and calls for the govt to "defend and preserve [the environment] for present and future
generations.? Wait, of course you didn’t know that, or else you wouldn’t have questioned whether or not they would enact such “crippling” legislation.
Yeah. CHina ‘enacting legislation’ means next to nothing. Especially next to nothing given that they are rapidly becoming the world’s consumer of coal.
What is one to base their opinion on? The laws China is passing, or what they are spending their time and money on?
The laws sound all tree-huggy. Pay no attention to the plumes of smoke rising from their power plants.
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Easy solution to all those that Do Not believe that we are a large part of the increased climate change:
Take them out into their Escalades, Navigators, Hummers and Land Rovers. Lock them in so they cannot get out, turn on the engine and
then “Stick a Banana in their TailPipe” and see how long they last before a slow death takes them to whatever heaven they believe in.
People seem to forget that this little sphere we live on is a CLOSED ECO SYSTEM ! There will be no place to hide when it all comes
crashing down…[/quote]
AlGore toodles around town in a chauffeur-driven Escalade and trots the globe in a private jet. If it’s good enough for him, why can’t I drive my LR? I don’t own a jet. I don’t own an airplane of any sort.
Why is it okay for the author of “Earth in The Balance” to destroy the panet, but you want to execute anyone who owns a vehicle you dislike?
Perhaps someone should tie you to a tree at the base of Mt. Pinatubo at eruption time and see how well those green credits do at saving you from pure, unadulterated Mother Nature.
Or maybe even send you to Indonesia and make you haul out a couple hundred pounds of sulfur from a live volcano.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Number of studies doesn’t equal number of scientists. One bad scientist publishing 300 studies isn’t better than a team of good scientists publishing one study.
And even further, number of studies can be very misleading. When the government picks sides in a scientific debate, it will only fund studies designed to prove the itself right.
I’d question what the 65% of the studies that didn’t get included in that 97% actually said.
Even using the search terms “climate change” and “global warming” is biased to begin with excluding studies that don’t use the buzz words of the believer crowd.[/quote]
First of all, if you are producing a study that denies the existence of “climate change” or “global warming” or any of the other buzz words those words would still be in the study somewhere. Most likely preceded by words such as “there is no” or followed by words such “is not happening”. So in that sense the search parameters are not biased at all.
The 35% number simply refers to studies that take a stance one way or another. The other 65% were not dealing with whether or not climate change was occurring in and of itself. The point is that 97% of studies that DO take a stance one way or the other take the stance that climate change IS occurring.
Maybe we SHOULD invest more money in green technology instead of oil refining techniques. [/quote]
Why?
Who is “we” and by what mechanism should “we” be doing this investing? Through tax dollars obtained at the point of the gun? [/quote]
So why not speak to them in that language for a change? Google has already started this trend by producing their own low-carbon-emission energy onsite. [/quote]
Hate to burst your bubble about the mighty Googz…but we worked on one of their server farms in Nevada and they built a huge gas power plant on-site to fill the high demand.
Not clean, but cost effective.[/quote]
Natural gas is one of the cleanest energy sources there is and a society is a bunch of fools not to drill for and use it whenever/wherever possible. The US supply is absolutely staggering.
The use of oil and gas within US territory is the one sure-fired way to right the economic ship that we find ourselves in today.[/quote]
Clean, but certainly not green as was referenced above.[/quote]
It’s an alternative fuel source that is far cleaner to use and extract then the more prevalent alternatives. Stop quibbling over semantics.
Maybe we SHOULD invest more money in green technology instead of oil refining techniques. [/quote]
Why?
Who is “we” and by what mechanism should “we” be doing this investing? Through tax dollars obtained at the point of the gun? [/quote]
So why not speak to them in that language for a change? Google has already started this trend by producing their own low-carbon-emission energy onsite. [/quote]
Hate to burst your bubble about the mighty Googz…but we worked on one of their server farms in Nevada and they built a huge gas power plant on-site to fill the high demand.
Not clean, but cost effective.[/quote]
Natural gas is FAR cleaner than any other more “mainstream” option such as coal. And while they are using natural gas, they are using natural gas to create the electricity for the systems that back up their BloomEnergy solid oxide fuel cell generators. They use TONS of power and are looking for all sorts of greener options. Natural gas is one of them, but certainly not the only one and I think it isn’t even the primary one anymore, now that they use these BloomEnergy generators.
Maybe we SHOULD invest more money in green technology instead of oil refining techniques. [/quote]
Why?
Who is “we” and by what mechanism should “we” be doing this investing? Through tax dollars obtained at the point of the gun? [/quote]
So why not speak to them in that language for a change? Google has already started this trend by producing their own low-carbon-emission energy onsite. [/quote]
Hate to burst your bubble about the mighty Googz…but we worked on one of their server farms in Nevada and they built a huge gas power plant on-site to fill the high demand.
Not clean, but cost effective.[/quote]
Natural gas is FAR cleaner than any other more “mainstream” option such as coal. And while they are using natural gas, they are using natural gas to create the electricity for the systems that back up their BloomEnergy solid oxide fuel cell generators. They use TONS of power and are looking for all sorts of greener options. Natural gas is one of them, but certainly not the only one and I think it isn’t even the primary one anymore, now that they use these BloomEnergy generators.[/quote]
Natural gas is cleaner, but it is by no means GREEN.
This facility opened last year and the gasser is its sole source of power.
