[quote]pushharder wrote:
“There’s a sucker born every minute” and anyone, and I mean anyone who at this juncture buys into the idea that man-made activities are leading to meteorological cataclysm is the very definition of sucker.[/quote]
I am Awarding you two sets of Gold Bars , I know this is highly unusual but well deserved . One is for Pushing Harder than anyone else to raise the standard of Dumb Fuckery and the other is for pure and simple Irony
Congratulations
Once again “global warming” blamed for drought in CA when in reality politics is the cause.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Once again “global warming” blamed for drought in CA when in reality politics is the cause.
No, weather is to blame for the drought. Politics is to blame for the ill-preparedness in handling the drought.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“There’s a sucker born every minute” and anyone, and I mean anyone who at this juncture buys into the idea that man-made activities are leading to meteorological cataclysm is the very definition of sucker.[/quote]
Why?[/quote]
Because the conclusion of an impending anthropogenic related cataclysm requires far, far, far more proof than what has been offered so far, Chicken Little.
[/quote]
So, in other words you aren’t going to get off your ass to face any potential threat until the threat is there and knocking on your door? I’ll remember that for the next gun thread.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bert, you’re tutu-ing another thread, you trolling sumbitch. Hat’s off to you! But I got your number, ol’ buddy, ol’ pal.[/quote]
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve had the same general stance in every global warming/climate change thread I’ve participated in.
IF anthropogenic global warming is occurring, then we can certainly take steps to alleviate this. If we wait for the insurmountable evidence to hit us in the face, it will be too late to make significant inroads.
The cost of taxing our carbon footprints is insignificant compared to the costs we will incur if we are not prepared for global warming’s effects. Here in California, where we are experiencing the worst drought in centuries in this area, the effects will be manifold. Water scarcity will lead to increased food prices across the board (and across the country, considering more food comes out of California than any other state). Water scarcity will lead to more wildfires, which will lead to loss of property, increases in insurance costs, and so on and so on.
And for every study that debunks anthropogenic GW, there is another that solidifies the theory. Why do you automatically assume that only one side has an agenda?
Until you acknowledge that the debunking side has just as much of an ulterior motive as anyone else, perhaps even more, there is no point in continuing the conversation with you.
Here is what I don’t get. This is a typical facsimile of a PWI/climate thread.
#There are thousands of studies showing that climate change is partially caused by man-made carbon emissions. Climate change on a massive scale could be bad for us.
*Those studies are all bogus. There are also thousands of studies that show just the opposite is true, that man does not have any significant role in climate change. Your studies are wrong because there is a liberal agenda driving them.
#So…there’s a conservative agenda driving your studies. Now your studies are invalidated.
*No, only liberals are capable of being biased on this issue. Conservatives are, by nature, only capable of objectivity; liberals, by nature, are only capable of deception and dishonesty.
#Uh, so that’s why we disagree about climate change? It’s not really the science so much as where the info comes from?
*No, the science matters, but it’s a moot point since liberals are, as a rule, wrong on all issues. Liberals are, by nature, incapable of being correct on anything.
#(walks away muttering to himself that he doesn’t know why he even bothers in the first place)
*Hmmm. He hasn’t been back in the thread for awhile. I must have won.
That is not what I have been doing, and I think you know that DB. Further given the past hstory only one side has a history of falsifying data, conspiring to bias results with weather station sampling changes, conspiring to politically assassinate their critics in the scientific community, and so forth. The IPCC is guilty of all of that. It has been documented. Speaking as a professional scientist and active researcher, they are the mouthpiece for AGW, and they have thrown away all scientific trustworthiness. Until a society purporting to be professional, peer reviewed active researchers publishing in scientific journals for the other side does that I am going to call your bluff.
There is no doubt the politics of the issue cloud and lead to ulterior motives by all political pacs/candidztes, lobbies, whatever. However, what I am talking about is quantifiable scientific fraud from professional scientists that would get you expelled from any university in the country if you were grad student…or even a researcher…and never accepted back.
Look, if you want the issue discussed and researched great. However that is not really what you are asking for. One side is openly villified and the other, despite outright fraud and conspiracy by the scientists who are supposed to be doing honest research, is accepted flatly via fiat. This is not science. This is not the way science is done, or checked, or verified, or shot down.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…liberals are, as a rule, wrong on all issues. Liberals are, by nature, incapable of being correct on anything.
[/quote]
Indeed. Now THIS is an axiom worth repeating.
[/quote]
I want a Global Warming enthusiast to explain to me how the worst drought California had was in the year 1580, and it lasted 100 years.
Was it from the 18-wheelers ?
Maybe the dinosaurs ?
I also find it interesting that the term “denier” is being used, this is a term that was used towards those who denied the Holocaust. It seems that since the facts do not support the claims, GW enthusiasts are now attacking the psychology of skeptics. Scream loud enough and long enough, and you win your argument when the science didn’t pan out.
And by renaming the argument “Climate Change”, they created a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation. Has man contributed to GW ? The science is too scattered to see a pattern.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That is not what I have been doing, and I think you know that DB. Further given the past hstory only one side has a history of falsifying data, conspiring to bias results with weather station sampling changes, conspiring to politically assassinate their critics in the scientific community, and so forth. The IPCC is guilty of all of that. It has been documented. Speaking as a professional scientist and active researcher, they are the mouthpiece for AGW, and they have thrown away all scientific trustworthiness. Until a society purporting to be professional, peer reviewed active researchers publishing in scientific journals for the other side does that I am going to call your bluff.
There is no doubt the politics of the issue cloud and lead to ulterior motives by all political pacs/candidztes, lobbies, whatever. However, what I am talking about is quantifiable scientific fraud from professional scientists that would get you expelled from any university in the country if you were grad student…or even a researcher…and never accepted back.
Look, if you want the issue discussed and researched great. However that is not really what you are asking for. One side is openly villified and the other, despite outright fraud and conspiracy by the scientists who are supposed to be doing honest research, is accepted flatly via fiat. This is not science. This is not the way science is done, or checked, or verified, or shot down. [/quote]
None of this matters to the DB’s of this world. Potential impending cataclysms preclude acting within sound principles. Hysteria trumps reason in the face of coming doom.
But ultimately, it’s about money. “Doing something now” really, really means extorting funds from the taxpayer and subsequently lining the pockets of the Algore consortium.[/quote]
And that’s the big problem I have. We “have to do something now” for uninsured and what did we get? The biggest clusterfuck this side of the Great Society. They STILL can’t even get the fucking website done AND they’re lining each others pockets as they fuck the system up even worse.
That was for a problem we knew existed, had quantified in terms of missing people, and had an idea about what we thought it would cost.
We don’t know how man affects or to what extent he affects climate change. We don’t know the mechanisms of climate change. We have shitty computer models that no self respecting scientist in MY field (biochemistry) would trust, and we know a fuckload more about the minute details of my fields and the adjacent overlapping ones of genetics, metabolism, epigenetics and drug design. We don’t know how to accurately model the data, we don’t know the extent to which cosmic radiation plays on this climate change…
We don’t know shit. We don’t even know how to define the problem or the extent of the problem or what quantifiable steps are needed in order to cover said problem, and in addition we can’t even get the politics out of the arena with the biggest global authority on climate change caught outright defrauding data and conspiring openly to do the same and a lot more. It is as vague as could possibly be.
…and they want us to give the government more power based on an unknown of and unknown of a biased sample pool and fraudulent study of a politically active lobby?
Fuck that. Look, if ANYBODY on this forum has ever berated the lawmakers for writing shitty, vaguely worded, amorphous legislation as the open door to power grabs and corporatism that it is, then these very same people should be absolutely APPALLED at how this climate legislation stuff is being pushed. It’s that shitty vague open door times 1000000. It’s the ACA all over again only a million times worse.
I am all for cleaning up emissions, even via some regulation of easy things, like gas engines that are really ancient by technology standards and could be easily improved some(note I did not say electric cars or hybrids because that will constitute more power to the gov’t and a bigger intrusion in the market). I’m all for not polluting. I believe being a good steward of the earth is a duty for all of us. BUT I am NOT for carbon taxes and other overhauling legislation that takes more money out of all of our hands and gives even more power to the slime of the earth and their lobbiest puppeteers when we can’t even define how much damage, if there is appreciable damage, the mechanisms of damage. You want to get on things? CRITICIZE THE SCIENCE. Rigorously criticize it just like any other research field that I’m a part of. That’s what real science does. That’s WHY it moves the way it does.
Climate Change brings about more crime
A new study broadens a notion held by the earliest criminologists: Periods of higher temperatures – on an hour-by-hour or week-to-week basis – are likely to produce more crime.
The study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a research and consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., suggests global warming will trigger more crimes including murders and rapes over the next century, with social costs estimated to run as high as $115 billion.
Crime rates have gone down despite the claims that global temps have gone up.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Climate Change brings about more crime
A new study broadens a notion held by the earliest criminologists: Periods of higher temperatures – on an hour-by-hour or week-to-week basis – are likely to produce more crime.
The study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a research and consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., suggests global warming will trigger more crimes including murders and rapes over the next century, with social costs estimated to run as high as $115 billion.
Crime rates have gone down despite the claims that global temps have gone up.[/quote]
Lol. That’s conflating correlation with causation if there was ever such a thing. Guess what Ranson? PEOPLE STAY INSIDE WHEN IT’S FRIGID, so they might not commit crimes they otherwise would. Just like summer brings out the tourists, which by the way is probably another reason crime rates might rise (target rich environment), warm weather makes criminally inclined people want to go outdoors more too.
Also, 115 Billion. Whoop-de-fucking-doo. What is that, like a week of government spending? Peanuts when spread out so much across time. We’ll spend infinitely more than that anyways.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Climate Change brings about more crime
A new study broadens a notion held by the earliest criminologists: Periods of higher temperatures – on an hour-by-hour or week-to-week basis – are likely to produce more crime.
The study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a research and consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., suggests global warming will trigger more crimes including murders and rapes over the next century, with social costs estimated to run as high as $115 billion.
Crime rates have gone down despite the claims that global temps have gone up.[/quote]
Lol. That’s conflating correlation with causation if there was ever such a thing. Guess what Ranson? PEOPLE STAY INSIDE WHEN IT’S FRIGID, so they might not commit crimes they otherwise would. Just like summer brings out the tourists, which by the way is probably another reason crime rates might rise (target rich environment), warm weather makes criminally inclined people want to go outdoors more too.
Also, 115 Billion. Whoop-de-fucking-doo. What is that, like a week of government spending? Peanuts when spread out so much across time. We’ll spend infinitely more than that anyways.
[/quote]
Isn’t this another air ball ? I mean they make an outrageous claim, and the data doesn’t just not support it, but provides it’s own rebuttal.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That is not what I have been doing, and I think you know that DB. Further given the past hstory only one side has a history of falsifying data, conspiring to bias results with weather station sampling changes, conspiring to politically assassinate their critics in the scientific community, and so forth. The IPCC is guilty of all of that. It has been documented. Speaking as a professional scientist and active researcher, they are the mouthpiece for AGW, and they have thrown away all scientific trustworthiness. Until a society purporting to be professional, peer reviewed active researchers publishing in scientific journals for the other side does that I am going to call your bluff.
There is no doubt the politics of the issue cloud and lead to ulterior motives by all political pacs/candidztes, lobbies, whatever. However, what I am talking about is quantifiable scientific fraud from professional scientists that would get you expelled from any university in the country if you were grad student…or even a researcher…and never accepted back.
Look, if you want the issue discussed and researched great. However that is not really what you are asking for. One side is openly villified and the other, despite outright fraud and conspiracy by the scientists who are supposed to be doing honest research, is accepted flatly via fiat. This is not science. This is not the way science is done, or checked, or verified, or shot down. [/quote]
None of this matters to the DB’s of this world. Potential impending cataclysms preclude acting within sound principles. Hysteria trumps reason in the face of coming doom.
But ultimately, it’s about money. “Doing something now” really, really means extorting funds from the taxpayer and subsequently lining the pockets of the Algore consortium.[/quote]
And that’s the big problem I have. We “have to do something now” for uninsured and what did we get? The biggest clusterfuck this side of the Great Society. They STILL can’t even get the fucking website done AND they’re lining each others pockets as they fuck the system up even worse.
That was for a problem we knew existed, had quantified in terms of missing people, and had an idea about what we thought it would cost.
We don’t know how man affects or to what extent he affects climate change. We don’t know the mechanisms of climate change. We have shitty computer models that no self respecting scientist in MY field (biochemistry) would trust, and we know a fuckload more about the minute details of my fields and the adjacent overlapping ones of genetics, metabolism, epigenetics and drug design. We don’t know how to accurately model the data, we don’t know the extent to which cosmic radiation plays on this climate change…
We don’t know shit. We don’t even know how to define the problem or the extent of the problem or what quantifiable steps are needed in order to cover said problem, and in addition we can’t even get the politics out of the arena with the biggest global authority on climate change caught outright defrauding data and conspiring openly to do the same and a lot more. It is as vague as could possibly be.
…and they want us to give the government more power based on an unknown of and unknown of a biased sample pool and fraudulent study of a politically active lobby?
Fuck that. Look, if ANYBODY on this forum has ever berated the lawmakers for writing shitty, vaguely worded, amorphous legislation as the open door to power grabs and corporatism that it is, then these very same people should be absolutely APPALLED at how this climate legislation stuff is being pushed. It’s that shitty vague open door times 1000000. It’s the ACA all over again only a million times worse.
I am all for cleaning up emissions, even via some regulation of easy things, like gas engines that are really ancient by technology standards and could be easily improved some(note I did not say electric cars or hybrids because that will constitute more power to the gov’t and a bigger intrusion in the market). I’m all for not polluting. I believe being a good steward of the earth is a duty for all of us. BUT I am NOT for carbon taxes and other overhauling legislation that takes more money out of all of our hands and gives even more power to the slime of the earth and their lobbiest puppeteers when we can’t even define how much damage, if there is appreciable damage, the mechanisms of damage. You want to get on things? CRITICIZE THE SCIENCE. Rigorously criticize it just like any other research field that I’m a part of. That’s what real science does. That’s WHY it moves the way it does.
[/quote]
that was good. bravo.
State Senator proposes carbon tax on motor vehicle fuels.
A carbon tax would add 15 cents to the price of a gallon of gas in 2015, Steinberg said, and go up after that.
“Under either a carbon tax or cap and trade applied to fuel, consumers will pay more at the pump,” Steinberg acknowledged in his lunchtime speech to the Sacramento Press Club. “That’s necessary. Higher prices discourage demand. If carbon pricing doesn’t sting, we won’t change our habits.”