The Effects Our Fetish Has On Climate Change

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

I must note that the Eco's, or "greeen" have trotted out the 40 year old attacks. It would be interesting in that it reveals a mindset save that, as I said earlier, I have seen that show so many times that I know the lines better than I know the lyricks to LIGHT MY FIRE, HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN and BEAUTIFUL LANA. Now it is a major yawn except as a study in faith, resembling the classic sociological studies of UFO groups from some 50+ years ago. They lose the debate by forfeit, having committed the kind of fallacy that would get them kicked otut of Logic 101. Look up the Ad Hominem fallacy. 45 years ago the claim used to be "the smartest people are liberal"; and it was true. Now the claim is "liberals are the smartest people". I leave it to others to use their intellects to figure out the difference. As an ex-liberal I assure you that not only is the claim not true but the smartest people who were liberals are turning over in their graves at what has become of a once honerable movement

But to bring in the cold war; after a reach like that, somebody must have a pulled rotator cuff tendon. Um who won that war BTW?

The problem that the Right poses to them is this: Whe Rush Limbaugh, to take the most notable example reads a piece, it is usually from a well-known rather than obscure source. Beyond that. he has a webmaster who LINKS TO THE STORY in the original publication. Neal Boortz, who is a big time member of the "where is the FRONT of the horse" brigade, in the form of "Neals News", has one of the most informative sites going

Now for the kicker. While it can be reasonably concluded that Global Warming is a fraud (still unproven after 23 years), global warming is probably real. Look up the Little Ice Age and Maunder minimum. Sometime between late 1984 and mid 1985 I heard on the radio a report about sunspots. What it said was that, in addition to the well-known 11-year sunspot cycle there was another of about 4 centuries (I think the figure was 450 years) that governed warming and cooling trends and that we were in a warming period.

I remembered this when the Left switched ftom the Death by Freezing theory to the Global Warming religion in 1988 and thought that they were at it again; looking for something to twist to their advantage. You might want to read THE COERCIVE UTOPIANS by Real and Jean Isaacs. If you have a head for history and psychology, you will see how, having become the Establishment, they resemble the Church of 1610 (my choice of that years was deliberate) as well as resembling the UFO groups of the 1950's (However at least George Adamski was FUN)

[Saschadzg]

I did hear once that cow farts/burp sare supposedly one of the biggest contributers to climate change. Do we need to get rid of cows?

Therefore I prefer bratwursts and meat from pigs.

[RMS401]

Wayne I am soo glad that you generation will die long before mine, because all of you are bitter A$$holes who were fed coldwar ideology and have no accurate perspective on the real world, you are clearly very ignorant and apparently cannot read, my post said "america fuk yea!!" you moron! not fuk america. I love this country and it is people like you and the fox news republican corporate kool aid sheep that are turning it into a fascist state for corporate profits while trying to say that the liberals ruining this country. And the so called glory days that you all pine for the 1950's. the top tax rate in thoes days was 91%!!!!!!!!!! If a top tax rate was enacted like that today not only would our country be out of debt but we would again rein as the True Leaders of the World.

Finally, somone with a brain in this fight. But I have to warn you, Emily, that rolling around in the mud with pigs will only get you dirty, and the pigs like it. Climate change deniers will not be convinced by any facts, no matter how bullet-proof. They have sided with those who eschew science in favor of a blind faith that conveniently allows them to continue consuming the earth's resources with a clear conscience. There is no point in arguing with people like that.

-RMS

[willow]

Finally, somone with a brain in this fight. But I have to warn you, Emily, that rolling around in the mud with pigs will only get you dirty, and the pigs like it. Climate change deniers will not be convinced by any facts, no matter how bullet-proof. They have sided with those who eschew science in favor of a blind faith that conveniently allows them to continue consuming the earth's resources with a clear conscience. There is no point in arguing with people like that.

-RMS

It's not one particular generation, race, creed or species. Most people are dumb. Fact of life. It allows the rest to make a decent living.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

There was a guy in Los Angeles who wanted to buy a pound of brains and he goes into a brain store and he sees:

Irish brains.............$8/lb

Italian brains..........$8/lb

Frech brains............$8/lb

American brains......$8/lb

Climate Change (formerly Global Warming before the snow) brains...$33/lb

He says to the owner. "How come Climate Change believer brains are so expensive

The owner says "do you know how many of them you need to find to GET a pound?

[LuvsGurl]

It's not one particular generation, race, creed or species. Most people are dumb. Fact of life. It allows the rest to make a decent living.

"A person is smart. People are stupid, panicky, dangerous animals... and you know it." --MiB

[KittenAB]

"A person is smart. People are stupid, panicky, dangerous animals... and you know it." --MiB

Yep, when you get a bunch of them together, believing the same thing, in things like protests, that is very easy to see.

[RMS401]

There was a guy in Los Angeles who wanted to buy a pound of brains and he goes into a brain store and he sees:

Irish brains.............$8/lb

Italian brains..........$8/lb

Frech brains............$8/lb

American brains......$8/lb

Climate Change (formerly Global Warming before the snow) brains...$33/lb

He says to the owner. "How come Climate Change believer brains are so expensive

The owner says "do you know how many of them you need to find to GET a pound?

Funny, I first heard that joke about republicans. I still prefer that version--it just rings more true for me.

-RMS

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

That is why I am an individualist as opposed to a collectivist

[KittenAB]

That is why I am an individualist as opposed to a collectivist

You can learn much more not following the crowd, because the crowd will blind all but their own idea.

I have always been the "popular" for some reason, IRL. Yet I never liked many people, so I watched them, I just had this lucky position to watch from the inside and following the crowd, going with the popular opinion, rarely accomplishes anything. The popular opinion is always an extremist one, like the global climate nuts that took over the environmentalism movement. They recite slogans and catch phrases without ever knowing what they mean.

So for the environuts, tell us all, where did you get that ALL scientists believe it's humanity causing the change?

[Letluvsrool]

http://www.wri.org/chart/world-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2005

Here's some actual scientific proof of what sort of impact humans have on the planet. Climate change deniers can moan all they want spouting personal anecdotes about how cold it was last winter or how they believe there's no consensus in the Scientific community. They are wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong, so goddamn wrong about it it's just not even funny anymore.

When someone releases info on research they've been working on in peer-reviewed academic journals like Science or Nature dozens of other researchers at other universities all over the country will jump at the chance to prove them wrong. Why? Because Science is focused on being certain about what we know. If someone releases some groundbreaking study with controversal conclusions, Scientists will be stumbling over one another trying to be the first to refute it. This is good for everyone since it weeds out the bad ideas and ensures that Scientific knowledge isn't tainted by someone's personal opinions or beliefs.

If there truly was some sort of secret conspiracy among top Scientists to concoct a big lie about climate change/global warming, it wouldn't last long because the person who exposes the conspiracy would instantly become a superstar in the academic world.

I'm posting this because there's a lot of ignorant bullshit being spewed in this thread by people who think their personal opinions trump mountains of painstakingly researched and reviewed data. Literally mountains of evidence compiled over decades by a lot of people who are smarter than the entire collective intelligence of this whole goddamn forum, myself included.

[KittenAB]

http://www.wri.org/chart/world-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2005

Here's some actual scientific proof of what sort of impact humans have on the planet. Climate change deniers can moan all they want spouting personal anecdotes about how cold it was last winter or how they believe there's no consensus in the Scientific community. They are wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong, so goddamn wrong about it it's just not even funny anymore.

When someone releases info on research they've been working on in peer-reviewed academic journals like Science or Nature dozens of other researchers at other universities all over the country will jump at the chance to prove them wrong. Why? Because Science is focused on being certain about what we know. If someone releases some groundbreaking study with controversal conclusions, Scientists will be stumbling over one another trying to be the first to refute it. This is good for everyone since it weeds out the bad ideas and ensures that Scientific knowledge isn't tainted by someone's personal opinions or beliefs.

If there truly was some sort of secret conspiracy among top Scientists to concoct a big lie about climate change/global warming, it wouldn't last long because the person who exposes the conspiracy would instantly become a superstar in the academic world.

I'm posting this because there's a lot of ignorant bullshit being spewed in this thread by people who think their personal opinions trump mountains of painstakingly researched and reviewed data. Literally mountains of evidence compiled over decades by a lot of people who are smarter than the entire collective intelligence of this whole goddamn forum, myself included.

Explain why it is that everyone who publishes any facts that contradict the "global warming" craze are ostracised immediately then? We aren't talking about the conspiracy theorists, we are talking actually once highly acclaimed scientists that get shunned for coming up with evidence to the contrary to these. Also, the charts there are all pretty and such but do not include all sources, or did you miss that part? Lastly, explain why we are in a cooling if greenhouse gasses are such a problem. There they also mention "better ways to calculate", which is used by many statisticians for an excuse as to why the data changes .... while it is possible for the science to become more exact, it would lead to more real answers if that's what they were using, not just more catch phrases of the same garbage being spewed. Not to mention that organisation is still insisting on a warming trend when even the peer pressured scientists have conceded that it's cooling. In addition they only focus on one effect, ignoring the multitude of impacts we have. Why can't environuts ever come up with a whole picture?

[RMS401]

Explain why it is that everyone who publishes any facts that contradict the "global warming" craze are ostracised immediately then? We aren't talking about the conspiracy theorists, we are talking actually once highly acclaimed scientists that get shunned for coming up with evidence to the contrary to these. Also, the charts there are all pretty and such but do not include all sources, or did you miss that part? Lastly, explain why we are in a cooling if greenhouse gasses are such a problem. There they also mention "better ways to calculate", which is used by many statisticians for an excuse as to why the data changes .... while it is possible for the science to become more exact, it would lead to more real answers if that's what they were using, not just more catch phrases of the same garbage being spewed. Not to mention that organisation is still insisting on a warming trend when even the peer pressured scientists have conceded that it's cooling. In addition they only focus on one effect, ignoring the multitude of impacts we have. Why can't environuts ever come up with a whole picture?

Kitten, climate change deniers ARE conspiracy theorists. When a group of people stick their heads in the sand and say that the evidence and research of nearly every scientific body just isn't enough for them to believe, that's pretty much the definition. You believe that a vast majority of climatologists and politicians are lying and they have an agenda and you're just too darned smart to fall for all of that "inconclusive" or "made-up" so-called evidence.

Folks, sometimes you have to accept that all the weather-related disasters we've been seeing--the ones that keep happening with worse severity and frequency--are not because God hates the gays.

-RMS

[Diapered Jason]

Explain why it is that everyone who publishes any facts that contradict the "global warming" craze are ostracised immediately then? We aren't talking about the conspiracy theorists, we are talking actually once highly acclaimed scientists that get shunned for coming up with evidence to the contrary to these. Also, the charts there are all pretty and such but do not include all sources, or did you miss that part? Lastly, explain why we are in a cooling if greenhouse gasses are such a problem. There they also mention "better ways to calculate", which is used by many statisticians for an excuse as to why the data changes .... while it is possible for the science to become more exact, it would lead to more real answers if that's what they were using, not just more catch phrases of the same garbage being spewed. Not to mention that organisation is still insisting on a warming trend when even the peer pressured scientists have conceded that it's cooling. In addition they only focus on one effect, ignoring the multitude of impacts we have. Why can't environuts ever come up with a whole picture?

I wish I could post actual articles on here, but I do not have access to any scientific journals anymore. Also, I think that would be a breach of copyright laws too. Here, try reading this instead. It has good solid references.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

Oh, and Letluvsrool, there are many scientists and engineers in these forums, just this one is currently unemployed. Love your humility though.

[KittenAB]

I wish I could post actual articles on here, but I do not have access to any scientific journals anymore. Also, I think that would be a breach of copyright laws too. Here, try reading this instead. It has good solid references.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

Oh, and Letluvsrool, there are many scientists and engineers in these forums, just this one is currently unemployed. Love your humility though.

At least your source was honest here: "Many details about climate interactions are not well understood"

As for a consensus, I still find many more sources supporting the opposite of what environuts are claiming, and can discredit their sources supporting it just like they discredit the others. The other item still never addressed is why a scientist can be renowned until they show evidence that contradicts their climate bull, then suddenly discredited. That itself is solid evidence that the scientific data supporting the "global warming" crap is fishy at best.

Then when those are pointed out you get ... well the response of Letluvsrool, which betrays that they have no real sources. Here's the thing, which is never addressed, every species effects the environment, and every effect is negative unchecked. So where are our checks? Why isn't there other species appearing to counter our effects as nature intended? Well, there are, but instead of letting nature clean up like it's suppose to we attack those species while perpetuating the populations of the species that are chosen by nature to become extinct. To say that what humanity does it not natural is like stating that an asteroid is not natural. Back when I was younger we fought to get factory emissions decreased ... decreased, not stopped, within feasible and possible limits, because we liked clean air, those before us pushed to get the auto industry to do the same because of a drastic increase in cars on the road. Again, because they liked clean air. The tactic we used to make people "feel good" was show some sad commercial of some cute an furry animal being threatened. We didn't have any scientific data supporting that there was any connection between the two, but it was lying. No different than the tactics we see now.

[Diapered Jason]

At least your source was honest here: "Many details about climate interactions are not well understood"

As for a consensus, I still find many more sources supporting the opposite of what environuts are claiming, and can discredit their sources supporting it just like they discredit the others. The other item still never addressed is why a scientist can be renowned until they show evidence that contradicts their climate bull, then suddenly discredited. That itself is solid evidence that the scientific data supporting the "global warming" crap is fishy at best.

Then when those are pointed out you get ... well the response of Letluvsrool, which betrays that they have no real sources. Here's the thing, which is never addressed, every species effects the environment, and every effect is negative unchecked. So where are our checks? Why isn't there other species appearing to counter our effects as nature intended? Well, there are, but instead of letting nature clean up like it's suppose to we attack those species while perpetuating the populations of the species that are chosen by nature to become extinct. To say that what humanity does it not natural is like stating that an asteroid is not natural. Back when I was younger we fought to get factory emissions decreased ... decreased, not stopped, within feasible and possible limits, because we liked clean air, those before us pushed to get the auto industry to do the same because of a drastic increase in cars on the road. Again, because they liked clean air. The tactic we used to make people "feel good" was show some sad commercial of some cute an furry animal being threatened. We didn't have any scientific data supporting that there was any connection between the two, but it was lying. No different than the tactics we see now.

???

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Funny, I first heard that joke about republicans. I still prefer that version--it just rings more true for me.

-RMS

The reason you hear it about republicans is because you can find enough of them to GET a pound of brains and the reason it "rings true" to you is because you are deaf EXCUSE MY POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS: audotrially challenged

[BriGuy]

Auditorily is the word you're seeking. And fancy having troubles hearing on a text based forum. The level of complex moronic brain function it requires to devise a slam like that baffles me. Well done...

Republicans and Democrats are the ones who give me hope our human race wont be around much longer. Right or left they are all wrong and paid off.

The sky is falling....

The sky is falling!

[Diapered Jason]

At least your source was honest here: "Many details about climate interactions are not well understood"

As for a consensus, I still find many more sources supporting the opposite of what environuts are claiming, and can discredit their sources supporting it just like they discredit the others. The other item still never addressed is why a scientist can be renowned until they show evidence that contradicts their climate bull, then suddenly discredited. That itself is solid evidence that the scientific data supporting the "global warming" crap is fishy at best.

Then when those are pointed out you get ... well the response of Letluvsrool, which betrays that they have no real sources. Here's the thing, which is never addressed, every species effects the environment, and every effect is negative unchecked. So where are our checks? Why isn't there other species appearing to counter our effects as nature intended? Well, there are, but instead of letting nature clean up like it's suppose to we attack those species while perpetuating the populations of the species that are chosen by nature to become extinct. To say that what humanity does it not natural is like stating that an asteroid is not natural. Back when I was younger we fought to get factory emissions decreased ... decreased, not stopped, within feasible and possible limits, because we liked clean air, those before us pushed to get the auto industry to do the same because of a drastic increase in cars on the road. Again, because they liked clean air. The tactic we used to make people "feel good" was show some sad commercial of some cute an furry animal being threatened. We didn't have any scientific data supporting that there was any connection between the two, but it was lying. No different than the tactics we see now.

Whenever an engineer develops an attitude like this, he/she should be fired immediately, because it is attitudes like this that have led to some pretty nasty engineering disasters. Asbestos and lead are great examples, mostly because people were thinking exactly what you are thinking now. "You can't say for sure lead causes infertility, therefore you cannot stop companies from using it in their products." Here is a word to the wise, if there is even a remote possibility one plane may crash, the problem must be investigated with all planes. Generally, if something is wrong with one of the planes, something is wrong with all the planes. In severe cases, all the planes must be grounded. This kind of investigation is a regular occurrence in the aviation industry. The same holds true with your examples, which you are wrong about. All factory emissions were investigated and you will be happy to know the EPA no longer allows them to release chemicals such as benzene and sulfur dioxide into the air. Some factories had to shut down as a result. Aren't you glad Gas Works Park is a park instead of a coal gasification plant KittenAB?

One of the main reasons scientists exist is to help identify the problems engineers have created. For example, the Carnot cycle was developed after the discovery of the first engine to help understand and develop it. Of course, an engineer would say the difference between a scientist and an engineer is a scientist creates problems while an engineer solves them(lame engineering joke). Nevertheless, engineers often create a system without knowing the science involved, simply because the science is not there yet. As such, we are still learning about the effects our activities have on everything else; however, engineers have gotten better at predicting the many consequences that may come about as a result of a new product.

I am sure everyone has heard about nanotechnology to a certain degree. Engineered nanomaterials are now being studied extensively to determine its possible effects on health, safety, and the environment before they are being used in commercial applications. Nuclear power was not so lucky though. I would hate to see nanotechnology become the next nuclear power, but we have to make sure what we are doing is not damaging the environment and our health while at the same time keeping in mind the nanotechnology disasters that occur in science fiction movies are not real.

As for the scientists you describe, I am afraid I don't know anything about them. Scientists become more renowned when they create more publications. They only loss credibility when they falsify results or something similar. Could a publication be refuted? Submitted manuscripts are thoroughly reviewed to ensure accuracy in their claims before publication. Sometimes the publisher requires editions be made to the manuscript before it can be published. These editions are always minor and center on grammatical and spelling errors. Rarely do I ever see someone's publication refuted. About the only instance I can think about is Dr. Alan Heeger who helped discover the semiconducting polymer. This may sound complicated, but the one publication he made that was refuted was his theory on the origin of band gaps in semiconducting polymers. His theory was proven wrong, but he still strongly believes in his theory. Was he discredited though? Nope. In fact, he received the Nobel prize in chemistry the year 2000. He has made grand contributions to that area of science despite being wrong about one thing.

As a final statement, I do not think we are doomed. I am still hopeful that the very same technology that got us into this mess will get us out, but it will take effort.

[sarah_ab]

Auditorily is the word you're seeking. And fancy having troubles hearing on a text based forum. The level of complex moronic brain function it requires to devise a slam like that baffles me. Well done...

off.

The sky is falling....

The sky is falling!

ok two comments...

1. i hear just find online thank you very much

2. om my goodness i was walking into work today and this big pinecone fell out of the tree on my head!!! i felt like henny penny "the sky is falling!!! the sky is falling!!!"

[RMS401]

The reason you hear it about republicans is because you can find enough of them to GET a pound of brains and the reason it "rings true" to you is because you are deaf EXCUSE MY POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS: audotrially challenged

Yeah, that went well. And I thought my response was very measured and in good humor. What's up with the personal attack there?

-RMS

[KittenAB]

Whenever an engineer develops an attitude like this, he/she should be fired immediately, because it is attitudes like this that have led to some pretty nasty engineering disasters. Asbestos and lead are great examples, mostly because people were thinking exactly what you are thinking now. "You can't say for sure lead causes infertility, therefore you cannot stop companies from using it in their products." Here is a word to the wise, if there is even a remote possibility one plane may crash, the problem must be investigated with all planes. Generally, if something is wrong with one of the planes, something is wrong with all the planes. In severe cases, all the planes must be grounded. This kind of investigation is a regular occurrence in the aviation industry. The same holds true with your examples, which you are wrong about. All factory emissions were investigated and you will be happy to know the EPA no longer allows them to release chemicals such as benzene and sulfur dioxide into the air. Some factories had to shut down as a result. Aren't you glad Gas Works Park is a park instead of a coal gasification plant KittenAB?

One of the main reasons scientists exist is to help identify the problems engineers have created. For example, the Carnot cycle was developed after the discovery of the first engine to help understand and develop it. Of course, an engineer would say the difference between a scientist and an engineer is a scientist creates problems while an engineer solves them(lame engineering joke). Nevertheless, engineers often create a system without knowing the science involved, simply because the science is not there yet. As such, we are still learning about the effects our activities have on everything else; however, engineers have gotten better at predicting the many consequences that may come about as a result of a new product.

I am sure everyone has heard about nanotechnology to a certain degree. Engineered nanomaterials are now being studied extensively to determine its possible effects on health, safety, and the environment before they are being used in commercial applications. Nuclear power was not so lucky though. I would hate to see nanotechnology become the next nuclear power, but we have to make sure what we are doing is not damaging the environment and our health while at the same time keeping in mind the nanotechnology disasters that occur in science fiction movies are not real.

As for the scientists you describe, I am afraid I don't know anything about them. Scientists become more renowned when they create more publications. They only loss credibility when they falsify results or something similar. Could a publication be refuted? Submitted manuscripts are thoroughly reviewed to ensure accuracy in their claims before publication. Sometimes the publisher requires editions be made to the manuscript before it can be published. These editions are always minor and center on grammatical and spelling errors. Rarely do I ever see someone's publication refuted. About the only instance I can think about is Dr. Alan Heeger who helped discover the semiconducting polymer. This may sound complicated, but the one publication he made that was refuted was his theory on the origin of band gaps in semiconducting polymers. His theory was proven wrong, but he still strongly believes in his theory. Was he discredited though? Nope. In fact, he received the Nobel prize in chemistry the year 2000. He has made grand contributions to that area of science despite being wrong about one thing.

As a final statement, I do not think we are doomed. I am still hopeful that the very same technology that got us into this mess will get us out, but it will take effort.

Wow, you really don't understand science if you believe that.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Actually, it is possible to hear only text posts via such programs as Narrator and even better ones (I wonder how they interpret emoticons)

[sarah_ab]

nope, you are not hearing text, you are still hearing text being read, thus you are hearing sounds, text refers to written words, which one cannot hear..... UNLESS you ahve that condition where you hear words, feel colors, smell sounds etc.... but thats uber rare.

[Diapered Jason]

Wow, you really don't understand science if you believe that.

Ow, that hurt a little on the inside. You definitely have thorns. I certainly can understand why someone in your position would be very defensive.