Further rebuting paranoid propagandistic 'climate change' rhetoric:

#51
#51
Is there any truth to the claim that the scientist that support/endorse the GCC theory receive grants for their research?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#52
#52
IPorange said:
Don't make the mistake of confusing not liking the bill and the reality of gcc, though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Regardless of this/that. I'm not gonna go outside and burn tires. I do leave my AC on 24/7 and I fall asleep with my TV on. (Sleep Timer mode)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#53
#53
Yes, scientists receive funding for all research. That goes for researching cancer, developing new software, and even modeling climate. The tin foil hat wearers try to imply that this somehow slants the research, but it just doesn't work that way. If the results and science are bad, one's career is over. If it was as easy as just saying, "I found the most amazing thing ever, and it's ___" and you get funding, then people wouldn't spend years of their lives working on these projects. And believe me, you don't get wealthy by doing academic research at any rate.

For the record, scientists who DON'T endorse GCC make more money individually, through corporate grants and NGO group funding. It's just that there are so much less of them compared to scientists that do research GCC, it looks like less money. The big money has always been to get in the business of disproving climate change. Whenever you go to a conference, the guy with the poshest suit in a room full of nerdy scientists is the one who is the nay-sayer.
 
#54
#54
But are there not scientist that both agree with global warming and scientist that disagree? Then you have both of those groups attacking each others findings. One of them is right or possible that each are right to a point.

I understand that climate change does take place but then again that it has always taken place. It then forces me to follow the money that some of these people are making on climate change, ie. Al Gore. I have a problem with companies being able to buy carbon credits because of their polution is more than someone elses. IMO if this polution is as bad as they say it is then you shouldn't be able to "buy" credits in order to keep on doing what they are doing. Its just seems that it is only away for certain people to make a ton of money, a scam if you will.
 
#55
#55
I agree that "carbon credits" is garbage. That part is seems like a scam to me, too. But humans are influencing climate, to a significant degree.


As far as "can't both be right," there are grains of truth to everything said on the issue. You have to go no further than this thread to see an example of that. gsvol keeps bringing up the CO2 "lag" in past cooling and warming events, as proof that CO2 doesn't cause warming. We actually agree that most past events were not "caused" by CO2, but that doesn't mean the current warming can't be caused by CO2, because CO2 IS a warming agent and did contribute to past warming events, until greater forces of cooling overwhelmed it, and started the cycle again.

He thinks this current climate shift is no different than the many known (and not in any way denied, despite what skeptics very often imply-- far from it, they are studied in great detail for insight on current climate), when it is quite different because we have humans releasing CO2 from sources that aren't normally in play in the carbon cycle, and not from natural sources that respond to heating (CO2 is part of what is called a "positive feedback loop").

So yes, there's a grain of truth to what skeptics often say, but that grain of truth is often pulled into a direction that doesn't match the rest of what we know. I mean, the implications to GCC are very, very disturbing to our prosperity and way of life. I can understand why people would want to believe it isn't true. It's also a fairly abstract concept and an abstract sort of "event," so I can understand why some people just flat-out don't understand it and thus dismiss it as BS, too.

But the bottom line remains the same.
 
#56
#56
IPorange said:
Okay, gs. You whip my young ass.


I've been attacking the "science" for months over several threads. You just don't listen, and repeat the same pseudoscience and fringe science garbage, sprinkling in real studies that superficially say something you like, but ignoring the actual conclusions of the researchers.
Click to expand...

Probably whip your butt on the chess board too!! :)

Look it's not about egos, it's not even about you and me, it's about your dismissive attitude toward a top scientist because of his age or supposed character flaw when you can't dismiss the science that doesn't support the gcc theory.

You want to call the work and testimoney of the top climatologist of MIT pseudoscience???

If there is and fringe science garbage in this equation, it is that of the UN IPCC!!

If you want to point out any piece of pseudosciene I've posted in this thread, please do so now or cease with your insulting bull carp charge.
 
#57
#57
I know a few guys who would certainly challenge the throne of top climatologist at MIT being assigned to Lindzen. Of course, there are egos involved there, but I don't know if you can just throw that out there....
 
#58
#58
TennTradition said:
I know a few guys who would certainly challenge the throne of top climatologist at MIT being assigned to Lindzen. Of course, there are egos involved there, but I don't know if you can just throw that out there....
Click to expand...


And those few guys have names, published works and testimony before congress to review???

Egos aside, let's see the evidence.

As a matter of fact just who says that Lindzen isn't one of the most learned and indeed the top climatologist at MIT and indeed in all the world??

Name rank serial numbers????
 
#59
#59
TennTradition said:
It's not proof in the sense that there is a smoking gun of evidence. 1 The dynamic climatological community by a wide margin believes that they can attribute a healthy fraction of our observed warming to man's release of CO2 into the atmosphere. 2 There are some that disagree, but it is a very serious minority (in that community). 3 There are others in other fields that disagree with the conclusions, though. I certainly wouldn't call the current state of the science PROOF. Proof is a heavy burden to bear, and few aspects of science really meet it, IMO. With that said, I do believe (as do the vast majority of my colleagues) that man's CO2 emissions will lead to temperature increases. What the effects of that temperature increase will be and 4 what we should do about it are things that I still put under the label, "debatable."
Click to expand...

1 what fraction? (not that I agee with your wide majority either and keep in mind a wide majority ageed with a flat earth theory)

2 and what is the basis of their disagreements? I would say the basis of disagreement needs to be adressed rather than blathely dismissed.

3 those other fields do seem to have a much better grasp of scientific fact in the long term rather than the marxist based industrial revolution thesis.

4 the presently proposed c&t legislation is insane, that isn't all that debatable but we would need a seperate thread to debate that.







Orangekush423 said:
Is there any truth to the claim that the scientist that support/endorse the GCC theory receive grants for their research?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
Dwight D. Eisenhower


"Science is, in other words, segueing back into a structure where once again authority, not observation, is the basis of the exercise of power and establishment of truth by the elite. But the authority in this new model is not derived from sacred texts; rather it is derived from legitimate practice of scientific method in the scientific domain, extended into non-scientific domains. Note that this does not imply that scientists cannot, or should not, as individuals participate in public debate; only that if they do so cloaked in the privilege that the scientific discourse gives them they raise from the dead the specter of authority as truth." Brad Allenby - Nightmare Science.

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."
George Washington

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 by Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the Club of Rome

"Schneider has made a career of telling the public that the climate is going to change drastically any time now, and indeed every spring and fall he's been right."
-- P.J. O'Rourke

The Club of Rome is best known for its 1972 report “The Limits to Growth.” The work of a group of MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) scientists targeted to a non-specialist audience, the publication predicted dire consequences to unchecked economic and population growth.

TennTradition is an MIT graduate student.

The MIT based Union of Concerned Scientists which is about as scientific as your average Pee Wee Herman probably had much to do with the Club of Rome study.

My wife ran an organization for eight years that required her to write grant proposals that requested $250.000 a year to help fund the effort.

She said that is basically a simple thing, you just throw in the basic buzz words and you get the money.

The fact is that there are for the most part a very few people who control most of the money flow in the world and if you want to get grants then you support their agenda.

The UN IPCC cooked the books to support their bogus claims of AGW.
 
#60
#60
gsvol said:
And those few guys have names, published works and testimony before congress to review???

Egos aside, let's see the evidence.

As a matter of fact just who says that Lindzen isn't one of the most learned and indeed the top climatologist at MIT and indeed in all the world??

Name rank serial numbers????
Click to expand...

You say "egos aside?" Your argument has turned to boasting about being able to physically assault me and then beating me at a board game.

You've dismissed everything that isn't lock-stock-and-barrel with your viewpoint. There isn't a thread from the last two years in which your posts haven't been answered, and answered well.

You are actually the first person I have seen claim Lindzen is the top climatologist in all the world. I guess it must be because he's a skeptic, right?
 
#61
#61
IPorange said:
You say "egos aside?" Your argument has turned to boasting about being able to physically assault me and then beating me at a board game.

You've dismissed everything that isn't lock-stock-and-barrel with your viewpoint. There isn't a thread from the last two years in which your posts haven't been answered, and answered well.

You are actually the first person I have seen claim Lindzen is the top climatologist in all the world. I guess it must be because he's a skeptic, right?
Click to expand...


And you claim to dismiss his scientific research because of his age??

You havn't refuted either the first or the second point of this twelve point thread so far.

If you thnk so then point that out, NOW.
 
#62
#62
gsvol said:
And those few guys have names, published works and testimony before congress to review???

Egos aside, let's see the evidence.

As a matter of fact just who says that Lindzen isn't one of the most learned and indeed the top climatologist at MIT and indeed in all the world??

Name rank serial numbers????
Click to expand...

Ron Prinn and Kerry Emanuel are both well-respected MIT climate scientists. I'm not arguing that Lindzen isn't a well-respected climate scientist, because his body of work is strong. I'm just saying that throwing the point out that he is MIT's top climate scientist without any qualification is too strong of a statement.

For the most part, I couldn't tell you without qualification which of our fluids (or some other general category of chemical engineering) guys is "top".. the idea is to be top of your sub-field, and you tend not to overlap sub-fields too much in one department if you're doing things right. Climatology is a broader field than a specific sub-field.
 
#63
#63
GS - I thought that there was a number out there for fraction of observed warming, but I can't seem to find it. All I can find is the radiative forcing that has been attributed to human influence, which is though to be between 0.6 and 2.4 W/m2. Maybe I am off on the specific temperature being out there, though, because natural 11-year variability due to solar cycles is usually averaged out when talking about observed increases.

As for sources of disagreement, I think a good example would be that of predicted extinctions. There are a lot of debates in the biology community about the nature, rate, etc. of extinctions due to warming. Another is trying to understand what areas will have more rain and which areas will have less when faced with a warming climate. The climate models are only 50/50 at this.
 
#64
#64
Ok, so I'd like an answer to this one. To my understanding, the underlying message here is that Americans are too stupid to take care of themselves and their environment. I'm @ a crossroads of sorts. While I don't support or believe in the type in interference that would be brought about by C+T, I do agree that the general population may actually BE too stupid to care/do anything willingly to help. I'm obviously not ready to forfeit my liberty on a count of others lack of knowledge. BUT, how do we fix it?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#65
#65
Orangekush423 said:
Ok, so I'd like an answer to this one. To my understanding, the underlying message here is that Americans are too stupid to take care of themselves and their environment. I'm @ a crossroads of sorts. While I don't support or believe in the type in interference that would be brought about by C+T, I do agree that the general population may actually BE too stupid to care/do anything willingly to help. I'm obviously not ready to forfeit my liberty on a count of others lack of knowledge. BUT, how do we fix it?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

If we feel that we have to 'fix it', then I personally think that some sort of legislation is necessary. It is a classic tragedy of the commons in the sense that one person's efforts due little to solve a global problem - if you don't see the direct benefit, then it's hard to stick with it out of principle. That legislation doesn't necessarily mean a carbon tax or cap and trade. I haven't spent a lot of time analyzing alternatives, but it is possible that offering tax credits to make these changes (as well as for bringing the needed technologies to market, because there is a bit of a chicken/egg effect here) could work to some degree.
 
#66
#66
but how much would the US changing do for the overall problem? There are still countries out there that would do nothing while we enact laws to hurt our economy (at the worst possible time).
 
#67
#67
I'd throw in that the strongest impact would be to get the markets to work for "you." Part of that would be consumer choice, and consumer demand. In other words, people demand greener products, greener companies, greener operations. That has already taken root in larger cities, but only in a "feel good" self-righteous way, not really in a way that has deep meaningful impacts.

But like you said, most people just don't care because they can't see the direct and immediate benefit (or cost). My political leanings make me heavily resistant to legislative measures. So, I am kind of stuck. I just hope people will get better educated and start collectively addressing the issue through consumer demand.
 
#68
#68
And further we must also realize the inevitable government lobby aspect, just like with ethanol someone is going to buy their way into the game while the tax payer foots the bill for any number of programs and mandates that will do nothing to help the environment, much of it is very likely to to do just the opposite.
 
#69
#69
utvolpj said:
but how much would the US changing do for the overall problem? There are still countries out there that would do nothing while we enact laws to hurt our economy (at the worst possible time).
Click to expand...

Exactly. Until we find a way to make China and India give a hoot, we'll only be making dent. A sizable dent, but not enough to do more than mitigate.

The way to do that is through the economy. We have to make it more profitable to be green than not in China. We have to find a way to alleviate the desperate poverty in India.
 
#70
#70
The easiest way to encourage people to become pro active in the green movement is to give them economic reason to do so. If the product is cheaper it will sell, not really sure how to do that though.
 
#71
#71
KB5252 said:
And further we must also realize the inevitable government lobby aspect, just like with ethanol someone is going to buy their way into the game while the tax payer foots the bill for any number of programs and mandates that will do nothing to help the environment, much of it is very likely to to do just the opposite.
Click to expand...

Yes, but this is a symptom of a larger governmental problem in this country that transcends environmental issues, or any other one policy sector. That problem is running rampant from top to bottom in our government. Hell, look at our financial system and the Federal Reserve.
 
#72
#72
personally I don't buy anything with "green" in the title (besides Simple Green but that doesn't count) because of my previous dealings with the greenies out in AZ.

I have made some changes but they are more for my personal gain than for everyone else. I've tried to do big picture stuff and it so stupid that most quit.
 
#73
#73
utvolpj said:
but how much would the US changing do for the overall problem? There are still countries out there that would do nothing while we enact laws to hurt our economy (at the worst possible time).
Click to expand...

That's certainly the rub. A problem is that a huge fraction of the man-made CO2 increases point directly back to us (and the rest pretty much to Europe). So, while we don't want to get on board if China and India are not, we also find ourselves in a tough position politically due to the fact that most of the CO2 is ours/Europe's as it stands today.

China's emissions are now right up there, as I recall, so they are a problem today...and I don't see anyway we get meaningful effects if they aren't on board, but there is no reason that they would do it if we aren't serious about doing it.

I'm certainly not trying to trivialize your point, because it's probably the biggest question you have to answer once/if you've decided something should be done.
 
#74
#74
KB5252 said:
The easiest way to encourage people to become pro active in the green movement is to give them economic reason to do so. If the product is cheaper it will sell, not really sure how to do that though.
Click to expand...

Or if the product is perceived as "better," but not much more expensive--thus a better value.

There is a small segment of the population, like hipsters in the like, that are already in that mindset. It's just a matter of it becoming mainstream.
 
#75
#75
IPorange said:
Yes, but this is a symptom of a larger governmental problem in this country that transcends environmental issues, or any other one policy sector. That problem is running rampant from top to bottom in our government. Hell, look at our financial system and the Federal Reserve.
Click to expand...

You are correct, this is exactly the reason many Americans will not buy into it though. Until we can trust our government to make sound decisions based on the best possible choice we will not trust in them, especially on issues like these.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top