Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

[DeaconSig]

Wrong, it is not impossible. But you are unwilling because it’s more fun to see the libs get their hackles up.

It's not that he enjoys seeing libs get their hackles up. His brain is too rotted to understand science or the scientific method at this point.

Don't argue global warming with a guy eating applesauce though a straw.

 

[warak]

like I said, it is currently impossible to disentangle the politics from the science, so one can't help but be skeptical about any claims on the subject

if you want to disentangle the politics for science than stop listening to politicians and look at the research and see if it can be replicated. data can be manipulated but most of the time that manipulated data cannot be replicated, conducted by adhering with the same scientific platform (methodology of obtaining the data).


the quick: CO2 absorbs heat in the atmosphere as it is reflected from the earth's surface - we release CO2 in the atmosphere through burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas) - CO2 then releases that heat, warming the Earth’s atmosphere.

How do you think this will effect the environment?

 

[birdman]

It's not that he enjoys seeing libs get their hackles up. His brain is too rotted to understand science or the scientific method at this point.

Don't argue global warming with a guy eating applesauce though a straw.

You're probably right because even his posts on the sports threads involve impish humor and simple ideas. However, sailor's attitude towards climate change science / politics is more common than just the applesauce straw drinkers here in the US. That is a big problem for the world.

 

[RJKarl]

Here's the effect and meaning...



God wanted man to pollute and destroy the environment...

See we can bring peace to both sides. Climate change exists and it was God's plan. Easy-peezy.

 

[Lectro]

In rereading this post I’m not proud of it. Skepticism is essential in all science. But, the politicians are the ones that have politicized the data and the science. The political conversations should be about how we deal with the problem, the scientific conversation should be does the problem exist and what is the magnitude.

Apply your skepticism at least equally to the motivations of politicians for obfuscating near scientific consensus. The skeptical notion that scientists have some system of reward and profit for biasing data and research conclusions is not supported by reality. There are very few filthy rich climate scientist, whereas there are plenty of filthy rich politicians and businessmen that are profiting by denying climate change.

“The great tragedy of Science —
The slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact.”
- Thomas Huxley

The level of naïveté in your post is truly striking.

Frightening,actually,when I am forced to believe that you actually believe the nonsense you just typed. I don’t really believe you have the requisite experience to speak of technocratic structures and their administrative states. Your opinion displays little in the way of understanding the makeup,nature and function of the IPCC.

Listen..I first started hearing these apocalyptic revelations of CO2 in 1973 and unfortunately believed them for some 30 years. 30 years of ever-expanding proclamations.. from Ice to Fire and back to Ice again. It became painfully obvious that I had been hoodwinked..cajoled into believing a hypothesis based on the chants of a mob. A mob that somehow imagined science to be akin to democratic processes backed by fake polling numbers (the 97% schlock)

Simply put.. there exists a finite number of times that any people,anywhere,will listen to crackpot zealots and religious nuts spout off on “end times,no snow,no Manhatten,12 Years” ad infinitum.The computer models no longer carry an oracular authority.Reality is setting in. The Myth is going through it’s inevitable death throes and all due goes to those stubborn, “Ugly Facts”.

 

[Demonwolverine]

One could argue that advancements or solutions are found to compensate for the panic each time. Whether they are government enforced (like an O2 emissions law) or technological in nature, such as tractors aiding famine, oftentimes a cure comes out of necessity. So you can sit back and just bank on someone else to fix the problem, or you can accelerate the progression and stop being a wrench in the gears.

If you believe that someone else is going to fix the climate issue so you don't have to worry about it, then that's your decision. If you deny it exists because...well I have no earthly idea why you would deny it. Perhaps because you think it will give the government more power to control business/factories, thus crippling the economy? For whatever reason, it's a case where your stubbornness affects everyone. You're practically the climate equivalent of an antivaxer.

 

[Lectro]

One could argue that advancements or solutions are found to compensate for the panic each time. Whether they are government enforced (like an O2 emissions law) or technological in nature, such as tractors aiding famine, oftentimes a cure comes out of necessity. So you can sit back and just bank on someone else to fix the problem, or you can accelerate the progression and stop being a wrench in the gears.

If you believe that someone else is going to fix the climate issue so you don't have to worry about it, then that's your decision. If you deny it exists because...well I have no earthly idea why you would deny it. Perhaps because you think it will give the government more power to control business/factories, thus crippling the economy? For whatever reason, it's a case where your stubbornness affects everyone. You're practically the climate equivalent of an antivaxer.

If you think a .8 degree Celsius rise over a 100 year span does not fall within natural variability then you are a loon.

And not just a loon but a morally bankrupt one as you participate in keeping much of the African continent in darkness and burning human dung for heat.All to satisfy your crazy response to a very minor change in a system so complex you have resorted to believing in the witch-crafted powers of CO2. A gas that makes up 0.53 of all greenhouse gases and of which humans contribute .8 — a gas which geologists know to their core (sic) is a trailing indicator.

It is an egregious and thoroughly “white” thing to do (using your politics here) but it is a very white thing to say “well,we have electrified and made our environment enjoyable through fossil fuel technologies but you folks in Africa need to hold off and await the solar revolution which,of course,you will receive little benefit due to costs and whatnot”

And here you justify it by telling the African “you see,there has been a .8 degree C change in the earths climate over the past 100 years so you can certainly understand our alarm and need to act now for the benefit of humankind?”

The African answers,”but the earth has been in an actively warming phase since the end of the ice age some 12,000 years ago..and except for a brief period (Maunder minimum) it has been on a slow and steady incline since that time. So you are going to deny us basic energy - which YOU clearly take for granted - all for a .8 increase in temperature over the course of a century? Do you realize how fucking whacked you are?”

I name it Technological Apartheid..and like the other forms of discrimination you can make the wholly human claim (they all do) that “had I known at the time what I supported was actually..”. So it goes.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

you can really tell how smart a person is by how much copy they devote to explaining themselves

 

[JuiceCrewAllStar]

what I don't understand is why climate change deniers think people advocating for addressing these issues want climate change to be a thing

it would be so much easier and better if climate change wasn't real -- what do we have to gain by saying it is?


anyways, green new deal legislation coming out soon

 

[Lectro]

you can really tell how smart a person is by how much copy they devote to explaining themselves

..a dog barks and the caravan passes

It’s not for nothing the caravan stops..

 

[birdman]

“The great tragedy of Science —
The slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact.”
- Thomas Huxley

The level of naïveté in your post is truly striking.

Frightening,actually,when I am forced to believe that you actually believe the nonsense you just typed. I don’t really believe you have the requisite experience to speak of technocratic structures and their administrative states. Your opinion displays little in the way of understanding the makeup,nature and function of the IPCC.

Listen..I first started hearing these apocalyptic revelations of CO2 in 1973 and unfortunately believed them for some 30 years. 30 years of ever-expanding proclamations.. from Ice to Fire and back to Ice again. It became painfully obvious that I had been hoodwinked..cajoled into believing a hypothesis based on the chants of a mob. A mob that somehow imagined science to be akin to democratic processes backed by fake polling numbers (the 97% schlock)

Simply put.. there exists a finite number of times that any people,anywhere,will listen to crackpot zealots and religious nuts spout off on “end times,no snow,no Manhatten,12 Years” ad infinitum.The computer models no longer carry an oracular authority.Reality is setting in. The Myth is going through it’s inevitable death throes and all due goes to those stubborn, “Ugly Facts”.

Well, it's an interesting hypothesis that I'm the idiot here. Could you please show me just one anecdote of a scientist getting rich off their climate science? Google searches for "Wealthy + Climate + Scientist" or "Richest + Climate + Scientist" returned nothing, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so please help me with my naivete and show me one example of a scientist profiting off their scientific work on the atmosphere or climate warming or glacial melting or sea level rise or sea ice melting or bleaching coral or anything.

 

[Lectro]

what I don't understand is why climate change deniers think people advocating for addressing these issues want climate change to be a thing

it would be so much easier and better if climate change wasn't real -- what do we have to gain by saying it is?

It’s not so much a ‘thing’ which is troubling.. it’s the Religion it has become. That is the issue.

It has become a theory of everything and wise people understand a theory of everything is a theory of absolutely nothing at all.


anyways, green new deal legislation coming out soon

 

[Lectro]

I have not said anyone has gotten filthy rich. But it is not difficult to prove that monies have flowed at an incredible rate to research that includes the angle of climate change. This is not disputed. Science has an incredible history of politics and infighting.

 

[Deacfreak07]

what I don't understand is why climate change deniers think people advocating for addressing these issues want climate change to be a thing

it would be so much easier and better if climate change wasn't real -- what do we have to gain by saying it is?


anyways, green new deal legislation coming out soon

Isn’t the inverse true?

 

[dartsndeacs]

NASA says to expect an ice age cause the Sun is going quiet. Guess we're all fine.

 

[sailordeac]

what I don't understand is why climate change deniers think people advocating for addressing these issues want climate change to be a thing

it would be so much easier and better if climate change wasn't real -- what do we have to gain by saying it is?


anyways, green new deal legislation coming out soon

Everyone accepts that the climate changes. It would be nonsensical to think otherwise. The climate has constantly changed, is constantly changing, and will continue to do so in the future. Simplistically to try to label as "climate change deniers" those who have serious questions about various aspects of a particular highly politicized and perhaps over-exaggerated theory trying to account for recent climate developments that are influenced by many factors, with complex not necessarily well-understood impact on each other, is an act of deliberate distortion, misrepresentation, dis-ingeniousness and bad faith. Why do you need to deceive yourself?

 

[birdman]

I have not said anyone has gotten filthy rich. But it is not difficult to prove that monies have flowed at an incredible rate to research that includes the angle of climate change. This is not disputed. Science has an incredible history of politics and infighting.

So you can't find one single anecdote, ok.

Incredible mean impossible to believe, so maybe you should check your numbers.

Research dollars are flowing to climate change studies at an alarming rate because 1) scientist are testing the theory of climate change, 2) its an alarming subject with potentially incredible consequences.

Lastly, you responded to a post I wrote in response to Sailor's assertions that scientists are in it for the money and the tenure wherein I suggested that the politicians are the ones really raking in the profits off this subject not the scientist and perhaps some skepticism should be directed at their political motivations. In your response you called me naive and were shocked that I don't understand the nature of the IPCC. So why the fuck did you respond if you don't dispute that scientists are not getting rich off fabricating climate science. This whole notion that scientists have something to gain by lying about climate change is simply delusional.

 

[Lectro]

I consider most of the climate-religious variety to comprise the real community of science deniers. Orwell wasn’t warning of me..he was warning of YOU. Those for whom lies become fact and truths constitute crimes. It is YOU who are too weak to step outside and confront your deepest held convictions.If you were to do so you’d find most of your convictions were really just echoes of what others had previously said.It is YOU who represents the un-examined life.You are weak and tepid and abstain from individuality in the face of the crushing conformity YOU champion at every turn.

And YOU can’t help it.. and that is understood and saddens me to see this watered down age so filled to over-flowing with chronological conceit..never realizing that far from being less gullible and more informed YOU were in fact part of an age rife with Charlatans,Apocalyptics,Taxecutioners,and their unanimous and excessive fear mongering.

 

[Demonwolverine]

If you think a .8 degree Celsius rise over a 100 year span does not fall within natural variability then you are a loon.

And not just a loon but a morally bankrupt one as you participate in keeping much of the African continent in darkness and burning human dung for heat.All to satisfy your crazy response to a very minor change in a system so complex you have resorted to believing in the witch-crafted powers of CO2. A gas that makes up 0.53 of all greenhouse gases and of which humans contribute .8 — a gas which geologists know to their core (sic) is a trailing indicator.

It is an egregious and thoroughly “white” thing to do (using your politics here) but it is a very white thing to say “well,we have electrified and made our environment enjoyable through fossil fuel technologies but you folks in Africa need to hold off and await the solar revolution which,of course,you will receive little benefit due to costs and whatnot”

And here you justify it by telling the African “you see,there has been a .8 degree C change in the earths climate over the past 100 years so you can certainly understand our alarm and need to act now for the benefit of humankind?”

The African answers,”but the earth has been in an actively warming phase since the end of the ice age some 12,000 years ago..and except for a brief period (Maunder minimum) it has been on a slow and steady incline since that time. So you are going to deny us basic energy - which YOU clearly take for granted - all for a .8 increase in temperature over the course of a century? Do you realize how fucking whacked you are?”

I name it Technological Apartheid..and like the other forms of discrimination you can make the wholly human claim (they all do) that “had I known at the time what I supported was actually..”. So it goes.

Are you comparing the technological advancements of a first world country to that of a third? If you're really all about boosting third world countries, then how about this: The UN forces all developed, first world countries to abide by climate laws, while third world countries are exempt. You could even throw an extra tax for solar on the developed countries. That would really force energy development in third world countries. I never knew you wanted to spread the wealth so much. I commend you for that.

 

[birdman]

Everyone accepts that the climate changes. It would be nonsensical to think otherwise. The climate has constantly changed, is constantly changing, and will continue to do so in the future. Simplistically to try to label as "climate change deniers" those who have serious questions about various aspects of a particular highly politicized and perhaps over-exaggerated theory trying to account for recent climate developments that are influenced by many factors, with complex not necessarily well-understood impact on each other, is an act of deliberate distortion, misrepresentation, dis-ingeniousness and bad faith. Why do you need to deceive yourself?

No serious climate scientists are doing this. Journalists and politicians maybe, but no serious scientist is doing this.