First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Climate Change Prevents Study of Arctic Climate Change
5134 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/16/17

ad_arbitrium wrote:

If climate change is fact, and does end up killing everyone,

would that really be a bad thing?


Troll much?


I am no scientist, so when those in the know speak, I listen. And when the vast majority of scientists say human activity is contributing to something which could potentially be very bad, does it make sense to politicize it? The fact is, nobody on this board knows jack shit about atmospheric chemistry. This is the reason we have experts, and almost all of them are saying the same thing.


argumentum ad verecundiam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
97% Myth http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
Finally, even though Crunchyroll viewers compare unfavorably with a box of rocks ;-) there is this http://www.petitionproject.org/ .
Fool disclosure : http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ Notice how they dance around the fact that the Petition project meets its own stated requirements?


Consider this: Some doctors will tell you replacement opioids are non psychoactive and non habit forming, with no withdrawal symptoms. Why would they say that, knowing it's a complete load? These are the same doctors who were making bank off every kid to whom they prescribed Ritalin or Prozac and other heavy pharmaceuticals.


Interestingly enough your metaphor matches up perfectly with why proponents of (C)atastrophic (A)nthroprogenic (G)lobal (W)arming aka Climate Change continue to defend their gravy train as mother nature gives them the finger.





Don't believe something because it's easier; ignoring a problem for the sake of short term convenience has consequences. What will be, will be, and time will tell who's side is vindicated. Only one of those sides, however, can we afford to be wrong.


A perfect paraphrase of the precautionary principle. https://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=precautionary+principle

Now, if only, each person in the U.S. would send me about $100 dollars every year to study/defend against giant meteors then I'll be just as measurably effective as the Paris Accords http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises



P.S. At least what I would be defending against, has actually happened before!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event




1159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17
exhibit A, see above. Your opinions, and the statistics with which you support them, such as they are, are meaningless. Your reliance upon them underscores your determination to prove the unprovable, i.e., that we should ignore the long term outcomes of introducing into the biosphere high concentrations of compounds to which it is unadapted and therefore vulnerable. What you seem to be advocating is that we ignore the early warning signs of a collapsing ecology in favor of a wait-and-see approach. I grant you, without having been alive for the last ten thousand years, it is impossible for me to say that what is happening isn't normal. But, guess what, mass extinctions are pretty normal, too. Even China, the most industry intensive nation in the world, is taking meaningful measures, sacrificing productivity for the sake of reducing airborne pollutants. Europe is doing its part. Studies can be bought, and while I appreciate that the anti-regulation crowd has interests to protect, it gets us no closer to the progress that we as a species must inevitably embrace, be it sooner or later.

I still drive old cars, so I have to get everyone who doesn't care about cars into compact hybrids, you see. I consider it my penance
34115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / St.Louis
Offline
Posted 6/16/17
when did top gear drive to the north pole?
mxdan 
11250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 6/16/17


I think your focusing in on something unimportant. The fact of the matter is that there is a majority consensus and that is enough of a reason to look into it on its own. Not only that but the quality of these institutions I think raises the degree of concern even further.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.WUTPBoWcGUk
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
177 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 6/16/17

ad_arbitrium wrote:

exhibit A, see above. Your opinions, and the statistics with which you support them, such as they are, are meaningless. Your reliance upon them underscores your determination to prove the unprovable, i.e., that we should ignore the long term outcomes of introducing into the biosphere high concentrations of compounds to which it is unadapted and therefore vulnerable. What you seem to be advocating is that we ignore the early warning signs of a collapsing ecology in favor of a wait-and-see approach. I grant you, without having been alive for the last ten thousand years, it is impossible for me to say that what is happening isn't normal. But, guess what, mass extinctions are pretty normal, too. Even China, the most industry intensive nation in the world, is taking meaningful measures, sacrificing productivity for the sake of reducing airborne pollutants. Europe is doing its part. Studies can be bought, and while I appreciate that the anti-regulation crowd has interests to protect, it gets us no closer to the progress that we as a species must inevitably embrace, be it sooner or later.

I still drive old cars, so I have to get everyone who doesn't care about cars into compact hybrids, you see. I consider it my penance


China is doing virtually NOTHING to cut their pollution. They are a communist country that controls its media. Anything published by them will always reflect in a way they think is positive. India is also polluting at an alarming rate. What part of the ecology is collapsing due to mans influence? The earth is still coming out of the last ice age for the last 10,000 years and it will continue to get warmer all by itself just like the last warm periods after ice ages. Thinking that man has anything to do with it is ludicrous.

Certain political parties want you to think that the sky is falling because it lets them create regulations that will put them in power over the economy and virtually every aspect of your life. Government control of industrial emissions is the fastest way to let them pick winners and losers. Write a big donation to the party and blam, you get a production voucher. The same thing goes for government run, single payer healthcare. They can regulate your life down to the kind of house or car you drive by threatening your healthcare funding once they get their way and go full on government subsidized healthcare. Look at what medicare patients have to put up with. Do you want that as your only option?
1159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/16/17

CKD-Anime wrote:

when did top gear drive to the north pole?


heh, long time ago. That was the original TG, back when it was watchable. If I recall correctly, they drove a lifted red Ford pickup with tank tracks for wheels, known to car people as Mattracks
177 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17

mxdan wrote:



I think your focusing in on something unimportant. The fact of the matter is that there is a majority consensus and that is enough of a reason to look into it on its own. Not only that but the quality of these institutions I think raises the degree of concern even further.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.WUTPBoWcGUk
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


no. there is not a majority consensus. The 97% theory comes from a manipulated poll of 76 scientists. They didnt poll every single climate scientists. They started with much more and couldnt get the percentage they wanted and kept whittling down the participants and changing the questions to push the poll in the direction they wanted.
1159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17
Loganthered, your response to my last post outs you as a fringe lunatic. You spout insane nonsense. What's ironic about all this is that the extremists from the other side of the aisle would say the same about your affiliations. Ah, the two-party system, see how she shines!
mxdan 
11250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 6/16/17

loganthered wrote:


mxdan wrote:



I think your focusing in on something unimportant. The fact of the matter is that there is a majority consensus and that is enough of a reason to look into it on its own. Not only that but the quality of these institutions I think raises the degree of concern even further.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.WUTPBoWcGUk
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


no. there is not a majority consensus. The 97% theory comes from a manipulated poll of 76 scientists. They didnt poll every single climate scientists. They started with much more and couldnt get the percentage they wanted and kept whittling down the participants and changing the questions to push the poll in the direction they wanted.


So what's the consensus on climate change being man made and made up? Because from where I'm standing the amount of sources on that subject matter is a much smaller number then the number of articles that say the opposite.

You know, a consensus.

>_<
34115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / St.Louis
Offline
Posted 6/16/17

ad_arbitrium wrote:


CKD-Anime wrote:

when did top gear drive to the north pole?


heh, long time ago. That was the original TG, back when it was watchable. If I recall correctly, they drove a lifted red Ford pickup with tank tracks for wheels, known to car people as Mattracks
actually it was a toyota pick up on some big wheels lulz

1159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/16/17
more proof that my memory is shot

edit: did i at least get the color right?
34115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / St.Louis
Offline
Posted 6/16/17
yeah its was a red truck
177 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17

ad_arbitrium wrote:

Loganthered, your last 2 posts out you as a fringe lunatic. You spout insane nonsense. What's ironic about all this is that the extremists from the other side of the aisle would say the same about your affiliations. Ah, the two-party system, see how she shines!


Pointing out the truth is not "fringe". Science is not up for a vote. True science is only concerned with what it can prove. there has been no proof that man has to do with so called warming.
Look up actual geological science concerning what is known about the end of the last several ice ages and we are right on track.
1159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 6/16/17 , edited 6/17/17
True science, it that like alternative facts?

edit: science also cannot prove the existence of a god
177 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 6/17/17 , edited 6/17/17

mxdan wrote:

So what's the consensus on climate change being man made and made up? Because from where I'm standing the amount of sources on that subject matter is a much smaller number then the number of articles that say the opposite.

You know, a consensus.

>_<


you mean articles written by all of the scientist getting government grants to investigate climate change? What did you expect them to say? "no we didnt find anything to support the theory, here's your money back"?
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.