Who is really anti-science?

If I add a poll to this article, will you vote in it?

  • Total voters
    0
#53
#53
2ironVol said:
If I were guessing, I would say you feel this way mostly because of the messenger. It has nothing to do with real science or you would know better
Click to expand...

If you equate "real" science to putting your faith in computer models, then by all means, have at it. Strange how the weather channel can't accurately predict weather more than 10 days out but some how we have a scientific "consensus" on weather data 20 years from now.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
 
#54
#54
Every nuclear operation is performed with a computer code. In fact nobody does much by hand anymore. I know most engineering has advanced toward some sort of computer modeling.

But I will agree some more accurate than others. But almost all include uncertainties with these evaluations that correlate to the accuracy. And there's a whole lot of science behind uncertainty calculations as well. I honestly haven't delved much into the global warming theories, but I assume there are uncertainties with their models.
 
#55
#55
After reading some of the journal article cited in the Yahoo Nasa one, it sounds like they are saying there is a lot of unquantified uncertainty in their models. Which had me wondering how they choose their assumptions. Generally you want to be conservative. What is conservative to the climatologist, world destruction or lack of change? I did enjoy one of the Yahoo comments, "So basically these guys are saying because my oven is hotter on the outside, it's must not be as hot on the inside."
 
#57
#57
The real anti-science people are the treehuggers
and the global warming fruitnuts. (especially those
who make billions off that scam)

They believe their dogmas in a religious fashion and
suffer from a messiah complex, ie; "we must save the
world."

My answer to the poll is 'no.'
 
#58
#58
There's a funny little flip up thing in the McClung Museum about evolution. The top card reads, "Isn't it true that evolution is only a theory?", and the card behind it reads "But so is gravity..."
 
#59
#59
tumblr_lrwltmukE81r3rasyo1_500.gif
 
#61
#61
Should be titled Global Warming Policy Action - RIP? No?

The article has some good points with regard to the push for legislation falling flay on its face. However, the author also reaches terribly in other areas, like pushing tge earth hasn't warmed in ten years mantra and associating that with a switch to climate change from global warming.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#62
#62
TennTradition said:
Should be titled Global Warming Policy Action - RIP? No?

The article has some good points with regard to the push for legislation falling flay on its face. However, the author also reaches terribly in other areas, like pushing tge earth hasn't warmed in ten years mantra and associating that with a switch to climate change from global warming.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So has the Earth warmed in the past ten years??

That's debatable.

http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ScreenHunter_135-Sep.-16-09.00.gif

Every Day In 2011 Has Been Cooler Than 2010 | Real Science

Recent 9 Months U.S. Temperature trend/decade – 7.8 F COOLER in 100 years UD/RK Samhälls Debatt

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Britain faces a mini 'ice age'

GREENIE WATCH

What exactly is the reason from changing the
terminology from 'global warming' to 'climate
change' other than the marxist philosophy that
marxism must always be in a state of flux?

There is definately some very good science
used in the debate, unfortunately it is 99%
POLITICAL science.

"Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth."

"The bigger the lie the more people there are who
will believe it."

Goebbels, nazi minister of propaganda.
 
#63
#63
I see the reason to be because not only will temperatures increase, but precipitation patterns will shift. The anticipated effect is climate in general, not just temperature.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#64
#64
So you are implying this is caused by AGW??

Look, the climate and precipitation patterns have
been changing since time immemorial and there is
nothing you or anyone else or all human kind
collectively can do about that and furthermore
the AGW factor is so tiny it has very very little
to do with the equation at all, in other words
that is immaterial to the discussion alltogether.

What does matter is political policy!


And Hitler also of course foreshadowed the Red/Green
alliance of today. The Nazis were in fact probably the
first major political party in the Western world to have
a thoroughgoing "Green" agenda.

Reading Mein Kampf can be a perverse sort of fun.
You can open almost any page of it at random and
hear echoes of the modern-day Left and Greens.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's
capitalistic economic system for the exploitation
of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries,
with its unseemly evaluation of a human being
according to wealth and property instead of
responsibility and performance, and we are all
determined to destroy this system under all
conditions"
Adolph Hitler (1927 speech)
Click to expand...

Clearly, the idea that Hitler was a Rightist is probably
the most successful BIG LIE of the 20th Century.

He was to the Right of the Communists but that is all.
Nazism was nothing more nor less than a racist form
of Leftism (rather extreme Leftism at that) and to
label it as "Rightist" or anything else is to deny reality.

So all the most condemned features of Nazism can
be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to
the language used. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and
Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in
content. All three were second-rate German
intellectuals of their times. Anybody who doubts
that practically all Hitler's ideas were also to be found
in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the
quotations from Marx & Engels archived here.
[/QUOTE]

Source.

Long read but worth it and my excerpts are
not neccessariy in the order in which they
appear in the text.

Riddle me this, why are we shutting down coal
fired plants in America right and left, which supply
49% of our energy yet shpping hundreds of millions
of metric tonnes of coal to China whose plants
burn far dirtier than anything in America if we are
afraid of runnaway global warming and resulting
climate change????

You would do far better to invest your intellectual
inquiries into what causes ice ages which a far greater
and ever present danger to mankind and when the
next one comes there will be more climate change
than you can shake a stick at.

Bottom line for me is that anyone who purports to
believe in the supposition that we have a great
deal to fear from man caused climate change is
either stupid or mendacious. :hi:
 
#65
#65
The 'dirty' vs 'clean' nature has very little to do with CO2 emissions. It is other emissions that ate cleaned up. But, shipping our coal there really doesn't address the issues at hand any way. Doesn't really matter where it is burned.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#66
#66
TennTradition said:
The 'dirty' vs 'clean' nature has very little to do with CO2 emissions. It is other emissions that ate cleaned up. But, shipping our coal there really doesn't address the issues at hand any way. Doesn't really matter where it is burned.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It matters when you pay your electric bill.

It matters when a company considers where it will
locate a new manufacturing plant.

Who is the guy in your avatar?

So what are the 'issues at hand?'
 
#67
#67
GS, I noticed that you used the phrase "time immemorial" earlier. Do you believe in the ice-age?
 
#68
#68
gsvol said:
It matters when you pay your electric bill.

It matters when a company considers where it will
locate a new manufacturing plant.

Who is the guy in your avatar?

So what are the 'issues at hand?'
Click to expand...

Specifically talking about the context of this thread - issues at hand are the generation of CO2 and its potential impact on climate.

The man in the avatar is Enrico Fermi.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#69
#69
TennTradition said:
Specifically talking about the context of this thread - issues at hand are the generation of CO2 and its potential impact on climate.

The man in the avatar is Enrico Fermi.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

What really bothers me is the politicization of science. By any side.
 
#71
#71
therealUT said:
GS, I noticed that you used the phrase "time immemorial" earlier. Do you believe in the ice-age?
Click to expand...

'The' ice-age?

To which ice age are you referring?



TennTradition said:
Specifically talking about the context of this thread - issues at hand are the generation of CO2 and its potential impact on climate.

The man in the avatar is Enrico Fermi.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

And we (our inept and corrupt government) are going
full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, to shut down
or regulate into extinction our main source of energy,
coal, before that question is answered. (ie; potential
impact or lack thereoff on climate.)

If this government were really interested in reducing
CO2 production then they would also ban the 100s of
million of tonnes of coal being exported to China, who
btw is putting on two new coal fired plants a week and
India is doing the same, much of which is funded by
our government in one way or another. It appears
this government wants to shut down manufacturing in
this country in favor of those countries, as well as
Indonesia also.

Do you think that prudent at all?

I think is one of three possibilities.

A. Ignorance.
B. Corruption.
C. A combination of the two.

Go Fermi! I used the name Enrico while resideing in Italy.

BTW, if we really want to get away from fossil fuels then
nuclear is the way to go.

In China it takes three years from conception to
completion of a nuclear energy project and they have
37 in the works, in the USA it takes 20 years of red
tape just to get approval and then the EPA takes
over, how long since we have built one here in America?





RespectTradition said:
What really bothers me is the politicization of science. By any side.
Click to expand...


So you think the EPA is vastly overreaching?

farmers104.jpg
 
#72
#72
Why are the Chinese buying our coal anyway...I thought they had plenty.... ?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#73
#73
2ironVol said:
There is no "science" that makes this claim.
Click to expand...

What a load of bat crap!

There is no disipline of science that doesn't dispute
AGW theory.

Name one and we will go there.




TennTradition said:
Why are the Chinese buying our coal anyway...I thought they had plenty.... ?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Well you must have thought wrongly.

Not that there would be anything new about that.

America has over 60% of the world's known coal
reserves.

We also have enough known oil reserves to end
importation of mideast oil, does it not make sense
to you to develope our own rather than having
the totally insane ethanol mandates?
 
#75
#75
Same old story, GS. I think that you are beginning to make it painfully obvious that I have engaged you with incredibly more respect and tolerance of your positions than you deserve. My mistake, I suppose.

I wasn't even discussing our coal - I was just asking if China did not have enough coal for to meet their current demand. I thought they had abundant cheap coal and that was why they were building so many coal-fired plants. So, what you are saying is we hold china by the proverbial balls? We are their middle east? They certainly have built a lot of coal-fired plants? They don't have fuel for them?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top