-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Falsified Data, Lies, & Anthropogenic Global Warming
- Thread starter vetusvates
- Start date
vetusvates
Gamaliel's Principle
Todd, I have been a very good boy, and have been holding back. It has been a hard, difficult task, but I have been holding out. Every day there are scores of articles about everything from lying scientists, to discarded data that "didn't fit", to the coldest/worst winter in DC since 19-frigging-22. And I am good, and refrain from rubbing anyones' nose(s) in ice and snow.
This excellent setup bringing me around to the multi-reference pluri-irreverent punch, of course, LOL. Since Nobel Prizes are evidently a dime a dozen now...ahem...I think I deserve one myself for not bumping this thread, despite "The Drudge Report's" consistent tenacious and unyielding courage, through sleet and snow and ice, to cover this harsh record-setting winter of all winters.
Just today, for example, Drudge Report's leading headlines :
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Oh yeah, and this, too...
This excellent setup bringing me around to the multi-reference pluri-irreverent punch, of course, LOL. Since Nobel Prizes are evidently a dime a dozen now...ahem...I think I deserve one myself for not bumping this thread, despite "The Drudge Report's" consistent tenacious and unyielding courage, through sleet and snow and ice, to cover this harsh record-setting winter of all winters.
Just today, for example, Drudge Report's leading headlines :
http://www.drudgereport.com/
(Red = my favorite, the good ol' NYT.)
Oh yeah, and this, too...
...but, of course, it's summer down there.
tsst
Deuce is watching!
Look at it this way Eric. At least it culminated in the most productive 4 days Washington(.gov) has experienced in decades. LMAO they were shut down!!! :grin01::grin01::grin01:
vetusvates
Gamaliel's Principle
Yeah. Too bad politicians and legislators don't have to follow The 'First : Do No Harm' Rule.
Roy Munson
New member
There are estimated to be at least 70 sextillion stars in the universe (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). It would probably be wildly conservative to guess that a few billion are orbited by bodies where life exists, and equally conservative to assume that at least several hundred thousand host systems where sentient life exists. We are of little significance. I'M not even convinced that the data supports significant anthropogenic climate change. Maybe the adherents to the theory are wrong. Maybe they're crying wolf. Go ahead and laugh at them. I don't plan on perpetuating my genes, so it's nothing to me. Good luck to your progeny if that wolf actually shows up.
Ricky87
New member
lol...70 sextillion: how in the world could anyone know that?. I personally don't get too boggled up in the ideas of space and other planets where life exists. This is the only planet that we know of where such life exists, and it would be a shame to pollute it to it's doom before we realize we're no-where near finding another 'host' planet. No denying there is climate change and that it is affected by people. Sure some account it to a natural revolution of stars and planets, or maybe even the apocalypse, but I believe that it's a fact our waste contributes to it, at least in some degree. At the very least we destroy habitats and eco-systems where natural wildlife does exist, and that alone is just as bad. We definitely can't depend on evolution to solve our problems, and clearly if we want a healthy planet we have to work to creating more eco-friendly solutions..Just my 2 cents though, and I know many people don't believe in global warming so pollution isn't an issue...I just think differently (as usual).
Roy Munson
New member
Well, if you know how many grains of sand there are in a cubic centimeter of beach, then you can extrapolate that out to estmate the number of grains per square meter. That ain't rocket science. And seventy septillion is a conservative estimate.
wade
Save The Humans
Cubic Meter son.
Roy Munson
New member
Thanks Pops! (I mean it.). What he said..
RavenSpirit360
Mitakuye Oyasin
I like to think about atoms and how much they are like little solar systems in there own way. And then think about what if our solar system is just another type of atom in a larger body of something else and so on and so on..
tsst
Deuce is watching!
vetusvates
Gamaliel's Principle
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits:
There has been no global warming since 1995 :
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fd7L9aEi
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61C1V420100213
There has been no global warming since 1995 :
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fd7L9aEi
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61C1V420100213
wade
Save The Humans
The troops can’t rally around the flag if you don’t have a flag. You have to have a cause to get everyone riled up or they won’t send their contributions to the number on the screen. Without Global Warming how will Al Gore and his buddies feed their families?
Why is our president still beating this drum? He needs to find a catastrophe for us to fear.
Why is our president still beating this drum? He needs to find a catastrophe for us to fear.
Drizzt80
Dakota Corns
Roy Munson
New member
I posted this in another thread, but the thread died:
I really don't understand why "climate change" is such a hot-button issue. Admittedly, I'm hardly qualified to evaluate the science, and I have even less business evaluating the socio-economic implications. Based on that, I should probably just shut up. But I still don't understand why curbing potentially dangerous behavior is a bad thing? I understand that regulation and restriction can limit economic growth, but can't it also provide new opportunities? Does it hurt to err on the side of caution, especially if thinking long-term?
It's a Pascal's Wager thing, only more logical. Do nothing, and maybe there are no consequences, or maybe you do irreparable damage. Do something, and there are still no consequences, or maybe you avoid irreparable damage.
I really don't understand why "climate change" is such a hot-button issue. Admittedly, I'm hardly qualified to evaluate the science, and I have even less business evaluating the socio-economic implications. Based on that, I should probably just shut up. But I still don't understand why curbing potentially dangerous behavior is a bad thing? I understand that regulation and restriction can limit economic growth, but can't it also provide new opportunities? Does it hurt to err on the side of caution, especially if thinking long-term?
It's a Pascal's Wager thing, only more logical. Do nothing, and maybe there are no consequences, or maybe you do irreparable damage. Do something, and there are still no consequences, or maybe you avoid irreparable damage.
Agreed! I'd add to that- do nothing and maybe you wind up on the losing end of world changing technologies. Or do nothing and you continue to feed capital and political will to terrorists. Or do nothing and risk running into the other side of peak oil where extracting it becomes more and more messy and complicated, or worse you reach a point where there's none left and you have no backup plan.
wstphal
working in the Gulag
The issue for me is that all the remedies so far suggested involve worsening the standards of living for everyone on the planet. The "reduce use of energy" strategy mostly involves reducing the standard of living of the poorest of us. And I don't just mean poor US residents. Right now, how people in the poorest countries are going to better themselves involves the use of fossil fuels to grow their economies so they can stop living in huts & cooking over tiny charcoal fires. The climate change alarmists often strike me as a bunch of "I've got my good standard of living so the rest of you can live in mud huts!" types. They never talk about alternative sources of energy that would provide the ability for the poorest people of the world to transition to more developed economies where they can have decent housing, clean water and a reasonable chance that any baby they have will live to adulthood.
Does this mean that energy is the only thing stopping those people from getting a better standard of living? No, I'm not naive enough to think that. But I do see that poor US residents are going to get hurt more than well off US residents by "cap and trade" and various other "remedies". And the poorest citizens of the world are likely to get hurt worse, because even if their government is trying to help them get ahead, it will be a lot harder under the proposed remedies for so-called global warming.
vetusvates
Gamaliel's Principle
Dean, I agree 100% with Pascal's Wager, in particular on the eco~conservationist idea.
What I do have disdain for is being side-tracked like the Roadrunner by one of Wiley Coyote's falsely painted desertscapes. Or being dragged through/into the desertscape by a bandwagonful of naive eco~martyrs more gullible and easily fooled than I.
The catastrophe of mixed metaphors was intentional. It is a metaphor itself, in it's entirety, of the clustermuck that AGW has panned out to be.
The idea of catching the coyote is excellent,...but the means are always......ill-conceived.
Attachments
Roy Munson
New member
I agree. I've been disgusted myself by some of this sort of thinking: We've raped the planet to get where we are; now we're going to instruct you on how to scrape by while preserving what we haven't spoiled yet (but we're working on it).