• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

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

The response to climate change from the right fits perfectly into the victim narrative they have co-opted for every issue that has arisen since Reagan. In this case, by more mastery of message, ownership has convinced average middle-class conservatives they will be economically victimized, even destroyed, by environmental regulations designed to ease greenhouse gasses (which happen to have positive ancillary effects on the general health of humans as well as all life on earth). These regs, on balance, will benefit every American oganism but could possibly (but not even certainly) shave a few percentage points of profit from the ownership class in a few business sectors, and lines on a chart in boardrooms will not go up and to the right as sharply. Therefore, a campaign of factual distortion and “owning the libs” absolutely must be foisted upon the masses to create more debate and stall progress. Dumb shits
 
RJKarl said:
As to the insane, brainwashed, ignorant mantra that addressing will kill the economy, last year there were more jobs added in renewable energy companies than exist in coal companies. It's one of the fastest growing segments of our economy.
Click to expand...

Yea,free money. Take Solyndra..please
 
WakeandBake said:
The response to climate change from the right fits perfectly into the victim narrative they have co-opted for every issue that has arisen since Reagan. In this case, by more mastery of message, ownership has convinced average middle-class conservatives they will be economically victimized, even destroyed, by environmental regulations designed to ease greenhouse gasses (which happen to have positive ancillary effects on the general health of humans as well as all life on earth). These regs, on balance, will benefit every American oganism but could possibly (but not even certainly) shave a few percentage points of profit from the ownership class in a few business sectors, and lines on a chart in boardrooms will not go up and to the right as sharply. Therefore, a campaign of factual distortion and “owning the libs” absolutely must be foisted upon the masses to create more debate and stall progress. Dumb shits
Click to expand...

“Victim narrative” what are you babbling on about? Your whole fatherfking platform is based on victimization of every stripe.
 
dot com said:
Lindzen also believes lung cancer is only weakly related to smoking, so there's that.
Click to expand...

That’s total fucking bullshit. But then you are a left winger and that’s is your medium.

Bulk Shit. And if you want to smear Lindzen with lies then fine. Take the head of the department — Willam Happer, Cyrus Brackett Chair of Physics at Princeton — a real mouthbreather, eh..

Watch him. And then I will send to hundred more highly decorated mouth breathers - you know, Nobel Prize winners who shoot enormous fucking holes in this absurd hypothesis
 
dot com said:
Lindzen also believes lung cancer is only weakly related to smoking, so there's that.
Click to expand...

even the most cursory look will quickly reveal the dishonesty of the lubish position, again, alas

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[83][84] However, when asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Company documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)[85]), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to."[86] Again, when asked to clarify his position by a climate skeptic blogger, Lindzen wrote, "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."[87]
Click to expand...
 
The segment with Hadi Dowlatabadi (U Brit Columbia) is very illuminating and demonstrates the central difficulty of determine the natural effects on climate and human effects. To date they are unable to disentangle the two bodies of evidence combined with the fact we are just beginning to learn about complexities in a system as complex as anything we know of (maybe the human brain?)

Another interesting segment is when Hadi and Richard (both of whom are IPCC authors) talk about the increase in Aerosols from the Far East and the adverse effect it has had on the IPCC modeling.
 
Defending Richard Lindzen is beyond stupid and brainwashed. He will say anything for money.
 
Lectro said:
The segment with Hadi Dowlatabadi (U Brit Columbia) is very illuminating and demonstrates the central difficulty of determine the natural effects on climate and human effects. To date they are unable to disentangle the two bodies of evidence combined with the fact we are just beginning to learn about complexities in a system as complex as anything we know of (maybe the human brain?)

Another interesting segment is when Hadi and Richard (both of whom are IPCC authors) talk about the increase in Aerosols from the Far East and the adverse effect it has had on the IPCC modeling.
Click to expand...

What is the harm in erring on the side of human causation?
 
WakeandBake said:
What is the harm in erring on the side of human causation?
Click to expand...

I don’t care either way - the temperature has increased 1.4 degrees F over a 120 year period. That is well within natural variability and nothing to be alarmed about.

What’s wrong with looking at your “coaches” at the IPCC and saying “look,a losing record since 1995 is a strong indication I need to change a change at the top”. :)
 
Lectro said:
I don’t care either way - the temperature has increased 1.4 degrees F over a 120 year period. That is well within natural variability and nothing to be alarmed about.

What’s wrong with looking at your “coaches” at the IPCC and saying “look,a losing record since 1995 is a strong indication I need to change a change at the top”. :)
Click to expand...

Climate change should definitely be approached through the lens of sports analogies. I'm now convinced by Lectro's evidence that the DHS and satellites (those crooked bastards) are making shit up as usual.
 
Lectro said:
I don’t care either way - the temperature has increased 1.4 degrees F over a 120 year period. That is well within natural variability and nothing to be alarmed about.

What’s wrong with looking at your “coaches” at the IPCC and saying “look,a losing record since 1995 is a strong indication I need to change a change at the top”. :)
Click to expand...

Hmm, and has our manufacturing, transportation use and population gone up a little since then? Does it continue to grow more and more every year?
 
Lectro said:
I could do this all day.. here is another (97 per Center) and there are literally thousands and they are growing by the day.

Dr. Anastasios Tsonis, emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Authored more than 130 peer-reviewed papers and nine books:
'I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science...Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change.'
'If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.'
'It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix...We should be skeptical of claims that the science of a complicated and unpredictable system is settled.'
'We may form an opinion based on the existing scientific evidence in hand, current knowledge, possible theories and hypotheses...The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in medieval times'
Click to expand...

Um, “human activity” is the first thing he lists among his opinion on what is causing temperature variability. I don’t think he is saying what you want him to say.
 
Lectro said:
I could do this all day.. here is another (97 per Center) and there are literally thousands and they are growing by the day.

Dr. Anastasios Tsonis, emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Authored more than 130 peer-reviewed papers and nine books:
'I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science...Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change.'
'If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.'
'It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix...We should be skeptical of claims that the science of a complicated and unpredictable system is settled.'
'We may form an opinion based on the existing scientific evidence in hand, current knowledge, possible theories and hypotheses...The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in medieval times'
Click to expand...
 
Again what is the harm in erring on the green technology side? Why not start developing alternative fuel sources? I mean you realize fossil fuels are a finite resource right? What is the plan for when the oil dries up?
 
how many cans of Bud were flung across living rooms in West Virginia last night following the Bud ad saying their fields are all powered by wind energy?
 
I don't think anyone, save the Beyonce/Jay Z corp., has been so savvy at manipulating/creating his art to maintain commercial viability while retaining credibility. Guy is a genius at the business of music. I guess McCartney as well, but he never sank as low, creatively, as Dylan has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top