RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah, those crazy scientist wackos, I am so glad someone invented the Internet so we could make fun of them! And the computers where the Internet exists. And the processes which allow us to obtain electricity. And the theories which allows us to understand and control all these processes. Take that science klowns!True, but after Yesterday's announcement I can't stop laughing at scientists enough to really care what they say about Global warming anymore.Global warming is a measurement of an increase in global average temperature. Dispute that all you want, but disputing it by saying that *global* warming is false because *greenland* temperatures did not increase is simply wrong. It's apples and oranges - no one has claimed that all parts of the globe are seeing increasing temperatures, only that the average over all regions has been going up.
Ooh, great off topic post. Now that you've shown you've nothing useful to contribute, does anyone else find it amusing one of the top climetologists now threatening an ice age that apparently no one saw coming in their models and that ice age is claimed to "not disprove global warming."
You did notice that Latif said five months ago that American news media completely misinterprets his research when they say stuff like Latif is denying global warming or disproving global warming, right?
Yeah, I'm laughing that we have one heck of a cold spell and suddenly it's 'the glaciers are coming, the glaciers are coming!' from some quarters. Others say "This cold snap jsut proves global warming" (huh?) and others are saying it's a random occurance. (Personally I consider it proof that the Divine has a wicked sense of humour)
It goes back to the 'weather is a sign of global warming, except when it isn't' bit I posted earlier, and that none of the much touted models could see this coming (or predict the mild hurricane seasons).
Of course I was more irritated at Thiago's implying I was some kind of luddite or something.
Ooh, great off topic post. Now that you've shown you've nothing useful to contribute, does anyone else find it amusing one of the top climetologists now threatening an ice age that apparently no one saw coming in their models and that ice age is claimed to "not disprove global warming."
I recognize I was a tad vitriolic in my response, and I understand your rude retort. As for your question, even though you specifically excluded me from those you wish a response from, I will insist in answering it.
If you find this amusing you are not aware of how scientific knowledge is produced, something that has time and again been stated by many other posters in kinder words. Scientists disagree in many aspects in their fields of expertise no matter how politically charged the topics are. It is, in fact, how science works. My post, which you deemed off-topic, was in fact an attempt to illustrate, how this same process, which is now being exposed to the public with lots of media spin, leads to the technology we all find so useful. In other words, there is small difference between the process which lead to the knowledge which allows us to have this exchange and that which makes the majority of climatology specialists think that global warming has a significative anthropogenic contribution.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Yeah, those crazy scientist wackos, I am so glad someone invented the Internet so we could make fun of them! And the computers where the Internet exists. And the processes which allow us to obtain electricity. And the theories which allows us to understand and control all these processes. Take that science klowns!True, but after Yesterday's announcement I can't stop laughing at scientists enough to really care what they say about Global warming anymore.Global warming is a measurement of an increase in global average temperature. Dispute that all you want, but disputing it by saying that *global* warming is false because *greenland* temperatures did not increase is simply wrong. It's apples and oranges - no one has claimed that all parts of the globe are seeing increasing temperatures, only that the average over all regions has been going up.
Ooh, great off topic post. Now that you've shown you've nothing useful to contribute, does anyone else find it amusing one of the top climetologists now threatening an ice age that apparently no one saw coming in their models and that ice age is claimed to "not disprove global warming."
You did notice that Latif said five months ago that American news media completely misinterprets his research when they say stuff like Latif is denying global warming or disproving global warming, right?
Yeah, I'm laughing that we have one heck of a cold spell and suddenly it's 'the glaciers are coming, the glaciers are coming!' from some quarters. Others say "This cold snap jsut proves global warming" (huh?) and others are saying it's a random occurance. (Personally I consider it proof that the Divine has a wicked sense of humour)
It goes back to the 'weather is a sign of global warming, except...
But Latif predicted this in the summer of 2009.
EDIT: Whoops. 2008.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
But Latif predicted this in the summer of 2009.
EDIT: Whoops. 2008.
Thank you for the link (part of the reason I love links, things I can follow and read). Interesting, wonder why this didn't get any airplay. Also since I'm in the northern hemisphere, I don't have data from the southern. And I'll take the 'ice age' as a bit of hyperbole. I still find the human impact overstated. (I think cycles aside, the Earth is designed to handle any 'damage' we inflict on it)
Of course it also points out there are a great deal of factors they can't predict/control for.
Completely off topic. They're talking about OJ futures on the news today. Does anyone else think 'Trading Places'?
Of course I was more irritated at Thiago's implying I was some kind of luddite or something.
I was not meaning to imply you are a technology hater or anything like it, since you, quite obviously, enjoys its uses everyday. Quite the contrary, I was appealing to your appreciation of it (in an admittedly sarcastic manner) in order to make a point.
I can't stop laughing at scientists enough to really care what they say about Global warming anymore.
My brother Greg once said something stupid, too -- now I can't stop laughing at anyone named Greg, not to mention all males and all blond people.
Ooh, great off topic post. Now that you've shown you've nothing useful to contribute, does anyone else find it amusing one of the top climetologists now threatening an ice age that apparently no one saw coming in their models and that ice age is claimed to "not disprove global warming."
This is an old idea, I heard it more than a year ago. Some even go further, saying that global warming will shut down the Gulf Stream and trigger a bigger ice age across the northern hemisphere. The media trots out this ice age stuff whenever the temperature gets really cold, or they trot out global warming stuff whenever its hot. But climate change, whether up, down, natural or manmade is mostly a very slow process with lots of yearly variation, and what the temperature is like in a given year tells you absolutely nothing about long term trends.
I can't stop laughing at scientists enough to really care what they say about Global warming anymore.My brother Greg once said something stupid, too -- now I can't stop laughing at anyone named Greg, not to mention all males and all blond people.
Oh, those silly Gregs. :-)
But if shooting flames out of your eyes would save just one child... :D
If anyone says "It's worth it if it saves just one child!" flames may actually shoot out of my eyes. ;)
Dohp! I walked into that one.
This is an old idea, I heard it more than a year ago. Some even go further, saying that global warming will shut down the Gulf Stream and trigger a bigger ice age across the northern hemisphere.
Ooh, great off topic post. Now that you've shown you've nothing useful to contribute, does anyone else find it amusing one of the top climetologists now threatening an ice age that apparently no one saw coming in their models and that ice age is claimed to "not disprove global warming."
Hey, I remember that movie. ;)
I can't stop laughing at scientists enough to really care what they say about Global warming anymore.My brother Greg once said something stupid, too -- now I can't stop laughing at anyone named Greg, not to mention all males and all blond people.
Disagreement, debate, and refining models are all part of the scientific method. I don't take issue with that, but this is one of many issues that seem contradictory to laymen and policy makers. Most policy makers say the science is settled, and huge steps must be taken to save the earth from global warming. Given the amount of work that remains to be done and the sheer amount of what we don't know is it not prudent to be skeptical of governments and their scientists?
I can't stop laughing at scientists enough to really care what they say about Global warming anymore.
It's your choice not to care, but it's hard to take your point of view seriously when you've resorted to mocking something you don't understand.
Disagreement, debate, and refining models are all part of the scientific method. I don't take issue with that, but this is one of many issues that seem contradictory to laymen and policy makers. Most policy makers say the science is settled, and huge steps must be taken to save the earth from global warming. Given the amount of work that remains to be done and the sheer amount of what we don't know is it not prudent to be skeptical of governments and their scientists?
Skepticism is (almost) always prudent. That said, some aspects of the science are settled to the point of consensus - I think it is less prudent to be skeptical of those claims. From what I understand, the parts that are still being refined have more to do with the details, and not the bigger picture. The more extreme doomsday scenarios probably deserve a healthy dose of skepticism, but so do claims that this is all a hoax and we'll be fine if we do nothing.
The problem with the whole climate change thing is that no one cares about any of the science in any way, except to pretend to support their politically-prdicated uninformed stance. It's all just a way to prove you're "with the team." All good liberals must predict doom, no matter what. All good conservatives must claim it's a hoax and mock the idea as much as possible, no matter what. As near as I can tell -- and this thread has given good support to this hypothesis -- nobody much gives a rat's ass what's actually happening, or what any of the research actually says, unless they think they can spin it for their "side." Certainly, even if the science became 100% settled, I'm pretty sure that no one on either side would change their opinion anyway.
|
|
Of course, one aspect of fighting climate change, namely rebuilding our energy infrastructure, does have one quite good benefit. Us not sending masses of cash towards Russia and the Middle East. France seems to have the right idea, given that 78% of her total energy production is done via Nuclear Power.
Yes, I am a Liberal, and I am wanting massive increases in Nuclear Power.
Of course, one aspect of fighting climate change, namely rebuilding our energy infrastructure, does have one quite good benefit. Us not sending masses of cash towards Russia and the Middle East. France seems to have the right idea, given that 78% of her total energy production is done via Nuclear Power.
Yes, I am a Liberal, and I am wanting massive increases in Nuclear Power.
Unfortunately, most American liberals don't agree with you. I doubt we'll ever see it happen in the States
Unfortunately, most American liberals don't agree with you. I doubt we'll ever see it happen in the States
It's a sad day when France makes us look primitive in comparison.
Of course, one aspect of fighting climate change, namely rebuilding our energy infrastructure, does have one quite good benefit. Us not sending masses of cash towards Russia and the Middle East. France seems to have the right idea, given that 78% of her total energy production is done via Nuclear Power.
Yes, I am a Liberal, and I am wanting massive increases in Nuclear Power.
Here's another wacko liberal giving you a +1. I don't know why we aren't looking into this more.
If man's carbon dioxide emissions are causing climate change, isn't the problem going to more or less solve itself on its own over the next 50 years or so? We're supposedly near, at, or just past peak oil, and demand for oil is increasing. That means gasoline prices are generally going to go up from now on, which means that people are going to use less gasoline one way or the other, which means that less CO2 is going to get spewed from cars. I don't know what the trends in coal use are, but won't places like China go the same way as UK did in the 19th century? As they develop their economies won't they find that other sources of energy like hydro and nuclear, and in the future solar and wind, are cheaper and easier to deal with?
Yes, I am a Liberal, and I am wanting massive increases in Nuclear Power.
With the qualifier of it being well-regulated nuclear power, I'm all with you. I don't know many liberals that feel all that differently, except for a preference that something that doesn't produce effectively permanent and dangerous waste products be employed where feasible.
|
Here's another wacko liberal giving you a +1. I don't know why we aren't looking into this more.Of course, one aspect of fighting climate change, namely rebuilding our energy infrastructure, does have one quite good benefit. Us not sending masses of cash towards Russia and the Middle East. France seems to have the right idea, given that 78% of her total energy production is done via Nuclear Power.
Yes, I am a Liberal, and I am wanting massive increases in Nuclear Power.
Two words: California treehuggers.
They're the left version of thew wacko christians.
Unfortunately, most American liberals don't agree with you. I doubt we'll ever see it happen in the StatesOf course, one aspect of fighting climate change, namely rebuilding our energy infrastructure, does have one quite good benefit. Us not sending masses of cash towards Russia and the Middle East. France seems to have the right idea, given that 78% of her total energy production is done via Nuclear Power.
Yes, I am a Liberal, and I am wanting massive increases in Nuclear Power.
Well I'm on board with the American Liberals then. The Economist did a pretty compelling article at one point on the issue and essentially pointed out that the surest way to kill a nuclear power project was to elect a fiscally conservative government. There have been a number of examples where nuclear power projects where on the table until such a government got elected. Governments that where themselves not opposed to the idea of nuclear power but simply opposed to having the tax payers fund the project. Nuclear power has proven to be so amazingly uneconomical that we just don't get such projects unless the government is willing to make all sorts of guarantees, particularly in terms of taking on any liability for accidents and in dipping into the public purse to cover the near inevitable cost overruns.
Essentially Nuclear power is the worst of all worlds. The public ends up having o pay for power from a source they don't trust while funneling the taxpayers largess into the hands of massive corporate institutions that they don't identify with, because only the really big players can create and run a nuclear power plant.
In the end if we are going to go dipping into the tax payers money to subsidize such things then I want fuzzy hippy power like Solar and Wind. Sure its not economical but it certainly is 'feel good' local energy (and hey - maybe we'll get some good spin off technology out of the deal). If instead we are going to be hard headed about the whole issue and save the tax payers money then we are best off sticking with coal and oil.
Anybody else catch that Venzuela is about to have a huge electricity crisis because the river they get alot of energy from is drying up during the current drought they are experiencing. I think another "liberal" (leftist leader) will be wishing for nuclear power. Of course, the US, even with someone as friendly as Obama isn't going to allow them to get nuclear power.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Anybody else catch that Venzuela is about to have a huge electricity crisis because the river they get alot of energy from is drying up during the current drought they are experiencing. I think another "liberal" (leftist leader) will be wishing for nuclear power. Of course, the US, even with someone as friendly as Obama isn't going to allow them to get nuclear power.
They're friendly with Iran and China... don't count on it.
And I'm a conservative for nuclear power.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I can't stop laughing at scientists enough to really care what they say about Global warming anymore.It's your choice not to care, but it's hard to take your point of view seriously when you've resorted to mocking something you don't understand.
Disagreement, debate, and refining models are all part of the scientific method. I don't take issue with that, but this is one of many issues that seem contradictory to laymen and policy makers. Most policy makers say the science is settled, and huge steps must be taken to save the earth from global warming. Given the amount of work that remains to be done and the sheer amount of what we don't know is it not prudent to be skeptical of governments and their scientists?Skepticism is (almost) always prudent. That said, some aspects of the science are settled to the point of consensus - I think it is less prudent to be skeptical of those claims. From what I understand, the parts that are still being refined have more to do with the details, and not the bigger picture. The more extreme doomsday scenarios probably deserve a healthy dose of skepticism, but so do claims that this is all a hoax and we'll be fine if we do nothing.
Feh, Science isn't consensus. Science is and waiting for us monkeys to figure it out. The article about the cooling is interesting but I still don't see why it's called 'an inherent effect of global warming' and not 'a failsafe'.
Now for something funny (via ABC) Falling Iguanas!
Skepticism is (almost) always prudent. That said, some aspects of the science are settled to the point of consensus - I think it is less prudent to be skeptical of those claims. From what I understand, the parts that are still being refined have more to do with the details, and not the bigger picture. The more extreme doomsday scenarios probably deserve a healthy dose of skepticism, but so do claims that this is all a hoax and we'll be fine if we do nothing.
Feh, Science isn't consensus. Science is and waiting for us monkeys to figure it out. The article about the cooling is interesting but I still don't see why it's called 'an inherent effect of global warming' and not 'a failsafe'.
Now for something funny (via ABC) Falling Iguanas!
You're right about that - science is not about consensus, but if some evidence is compelling enough to get the vast majority of scientists to agree about it (since scientists tend to have a reputation for disagreeing about almost anything), I think it says something about the strength of the evidence - at least until more compelling evidence comes along.
I've read a bit more about this global cooling article today, and it may reflect journalists misunderstanding things (not trying to bash Fox news in particular, but journalism generally). The scientist they quote (Majob Latif) was apparently quite surprised to find he was being quoted as having said anything about global cooling - his point was that a natural cooling cycle may mask the effects of global warming, not that claims of global warming were wrong.
Guardian UK's take on the story
I realize that it's irritating to discuss the shortcomings of some news stories by referring to another, but the take home message for me here is that it may not be a good idea to rely on just one source, or even several similar sources, for accurate information.
It really does annoy me that science journalism is so poor - and again, I don't even mean to fault Fox News, at least they included the opposing view, and while their emphasis may have been skewed towards the wrong interpretation (global cooling), they may have simply picked up the story from an inaccurate source.
And those iguanas were hilarious! They didn't so much fly as plummet :)
Yes, I am a Liberal, and I am wanting massive increases in Nuclear Power.
+1
My brother Greg once said something stupid, too -- now I can't stop laughing at anyone named Greg, not to mention all males and all blond people.
"One day one of my little nephews came up to me and asked me if the equator was a real line that went around the Earth, or just an imaginary one. I had to laugh. Laugh and laugh. Because I didn't know, and I thought that maybe by laughing he would forget what he asked me."
Anyway, back to the main point, I'm wondering. Who exactly are the 'voices of conservatism' in the US at the moment? Is it the Republican Party? Fox News? Sarah Palin?
Michael Steele should be the drum beater on this, but I think more would follow Saracuda (whom I support fully with my dollars) because of her capacity to get conservatives attention. She rallies the base, which of course, her enemies (and they are not just the 'media' and the left, they are the likes of the New England blue-blood country club) would seek to pull every dirty trick out, every half-truth, etc. Her kid, Trig, is actually her grandkid, to the crap about any argument in the house and suddenly she's looking at divorce.
Funny thing is, I can see a lot of people out there going "I hope she gets single, I could so make her happy". Lots of conservative wargamers out there in the basements looking at Napoleonics and hovering on every word.
Anyway, back to the main point, I'm wondering. Who exactly are the 'voices of conservatism' in the US at the moment? Is it the Republican Party? Fox News? Sarah Palin?Michael Steele should be the drum beater on this, but I think more would follow Saracuda (whom I support fully with my dollars) because of her capacity to get conservatives attention. She rallies the base, which of course, her enemies (and they are not just the 'media' and the left, they are the likes of the New England blue-blood country club) would seek to pull every dirty trick out, every half-truth, etc. Her kid, Trig, is actually her grandkid, to the crap about any argument in the house and suddenly she's looking at divorce.
Funny thing is, I can see a lot of people out there going "I hope she gets single, I could so make her happy". Lots of conservative wargamers out there in the basements looking at Napoleonics and hovering on every word.
Funny thing about Michael Steele, I just read this...
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/michaelsteele-gop-chairman-support/2010/01/1 3/id/346265
This thread isn't dead yet? *yawn*
Nah, we're still angry about our taxes and rights.
So the better thing is the tyranny of the minority?Give it a rest! You are choosing not to listen except to that which you find offense in. I am sick of it.So you believe I, a non-Christian, should pay my taxes to support your religion just because I'm a minority? Oh, look, textbook case of tyranny of the majority.Sure if the voters have an issue kick the mayor, state senator, whatever elected offical out. I still think the local government gets to pick and choose, but the courts don't.So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
Ok. What have I missed?
Christian tradition supported by taxes=Ok because it's traditional.
Politicians can be kicked out if the majority doesn't like what they're doing in supporting said Christian tradition. If you're a minority who objects to sup[porting someone else's religious tradition with your money, suck it up.
Courts shouldn't enforce the 1st amendment about not supporting religion because...?
Seriously, what have I missed?
American democracy 101: the rights of the minority are protected. That's a fundamental tenet of the U.S., and one should not confuse it for "the tyranny of the minority." Simply, in this case it means that freedom of religion must, by symmetry, translate to freedom from religion, i.e., freedom from religions that one may not believe in. Practically, that means the state can not sponsor religious display, as doing so explicitly supports particular religions. It has little to do with taxes (that would be an issue of fairness, not exactly something taxes ever are), but with religious freedom.
Conservatives blow a gasket over this every Christmas, but it's actually a deeply conservative tenet, and very much hearkens back to state religious harassment in Britain and Europe. This is not liberals trying to prosecute Christians, but old American values trying to protect all religious faiths.
American democracy 101: the rights of the minority are protected.
And if you don't get to keep the rights when it's inconvenient to the majority, the minority never had anything that could be described as rights to begin with.
Thank you for the link (part of the reason I love links, things I can follow and read). Interesting, wonder why this didn't get any airplay.But Latif predicted this in the summer of 2009.
EDIT: Whoops. 2008.
Because Labtif is one of the biggest proponents of anthropogenic global climate change there is, and he sees the cooling as nothing more than a lucky break that may, *may* let us get our house into order before we are hot as the dickens. So it doesn't really mesh well with denialist ideology.
The *may* is important too. Since a cooler weather cycle would counter warming effects, it obscures, politically, the fact that CO2 is still building up. When the cool period ends, suddenly the heat all comes at once, just as bad as it would ever have been.
Yes, I am a Liberal, and I am wanting massive increases in Nuclear Power.+1
+2
American democracy 101: the rights of the minority are protected.And if you don't get to keep the rights when it's inconvenient to the majority, the minority never had anything that could be described as rights to begin with.
Here's hoping Prop 8 gets s%~&-canned.
This thread isn't dead yet? *yawn*
Of course not. The need for discourse continues, despite occasional piques of temper. The desire for mutual understanding is there on both sides of the fence.
This thread isn't dead yet? *yawn*Of course not. The need for discourse continues, despite occasional piques of temper. The desire for mutual understanding is there on both sides of the fence.
And then there is the irresistible urge to flay my bones.
|
|
And then there is the irresistible urge to flay my bones.This thread isn't dead yet? *yawn*Of course not. The need for discourse continues, despite occasional piques of temper. The desire for mutual understanding is there on both sides of the fence.
I have been kicking you for years now!!!!!!!!!!!
What if you do not see a fence just misunderstandings?This thread isn't dead yet? *yawn*Of course not. The need for intellegent discourse continues, despite occasional piques of temper. The desire for mutual understanding is there on both sides of the fence.
Discourse doesn't have to be intelligent, per se. In fact, the desire for it to be intelligent often causes more fights than it quells. It should instead be courteous and patient, based more on the desire to walk away learning something than to come in knowing more than the other person. If I'm seeing nothing other than misunderstandings, then I'm in the rare position to be able to learn and inform simultaneously and without prejudice. Of course, I'm human, so I'm going to lean more towards one side than the other, depending on the particular misunderstanding.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I'd like to see a study that demonstrates people with higher incomes are more careful drivers that corrects for educational attainment.
With respect, Tarren, the point is general. I don't know if you have been watching this conversation for a while now, but what has been missed frequently is that my statement is a generalization, and is not intended to osit that rich people are better drivers. More cautious with details and their consequences. Less likely overall to get a ticket - maybe less likely to smart off to cops or more likely to get a warning because they have insurance or don't freak out when pulled over or whatever. The point is ONLY that the punitive value of the fine should not progress with someone's invcome because it's no one's business what someone esle makes and because they are less likely to be negatively impacted by the fine because they respond tothings better, not becasue the fine was in their budget or they just have an extra $80 they had no plan for.
This thread isn't dead yet? *yawn*
Begins to slowly circle the thread.......
Michael Steele should be the drum beater on this, but I think more would follow Saracuda (whom I support fully with my dollars) because of her capacity to get conservatives attention. She rallies the base....
That's the Republican Party's big problem nowadays. What exites the base tends to turn off the populace in general. Sarah Palin got people on their feet at the convention but may have wound up costing McCain the election. She polled high after the convention but her numbers tanked steadily after that. There are other examples: the Terry Schaivo(sp?) affair; George Bush for the last two or three years of term 2; the conservative challenge to the liberal Republican candidate in the recent upstate NY election; abortion, where the majority want to keep the law the way it is, even those who don't support abortion personally; and taxes, which are low enough that they are no longer a big issue with most people. And support for gay marriage is slowly increasing and is very high among the young, so the republican base won't even have the population on their side with that issue in the future.
What if you do not see a fence just misunderstandings?
Depends on what you mean by "misunderstandings." If you mean two people who genuinely want to reach a compromise but can't quite see how to do it, OK, I'm with you.
But some people use the term to mean "that other person's standpoint isn't valid -- they're just too dumb to understand that I'm right!" That sense of "misunderstanding" prevents compromise, and electrifies the metaphorical fence.
What if you do not see a fence just misunderstandings?Depends on what you mean by "misunderstandings." If you mean two people who genuinely want to reach a compromise but can't quite see how to do it, OK, I'm with you.
But some people use the term to mean "that other person's standpoint isn't valid -- they're just too dumb to understand that I'm right!" That sense of "misunderstanding" prevents compromise, and electrifies the metaphorical fence.
Kirth put it better than I did. :-P
HA! Top of page! Take THAT FAWTL!