yadayada Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I like this take on global warming: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7zL14dMfSO0/TpShEO5bIkI/AAAAAAAAAA0/x8mjNgDFTi0/s1600/hoax.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petec Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 The whole argument of "how much of that science is funded by government?" is ridiculous. No it isn't. It is just saying what we'd say in any other debate: be aware of where the data comes from. If global warming was disproved tomorrow, a lot of people would have to redefine themselves as scientists totally and have to find new funding sources or be out of a job. (I know this first hand having studied in the field.) That doesn't make them liars or cheats but it does introduce a bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APG12 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Do you prefer to breathe air in the post Clean Air Act US or the air in Beijing right now? Here we go! lol. You think the clean air act is why we breathe the cleanest air in the history of the world? Not our efficient technology. Not industrialization. Not our infrastructure that allows for centralized energy production. No, it's the government act that is the cause, I assume you're saying? This is exactly my point! The enviro ideology is going to color the way you see all of this. No objective observer could look at the progress of mankind and conclude that the clean air act is why we breathe clean air. Why didn't they just pass the act 200 years ago? Why is it that Beijing's air is dirtier? All the Chinese have to do is pass an act? Do you prefer to live somewhere where lead has been banned in gasoline, or somewhere where it hasn't? Again, you need to reject the ideology and come at this objectively. What would have happened if the government banned leaded gasoline in the early days of gasoline production? Are you starting to see how all of these arguments are the same? I'll even give you another one for fun ;D Would you rather live in a country where children are working 15 hour days or the U.S. where child labor is illegal? Dumping waste in rivers and the ocean, you are for or against it? It's already illegal for you to dump your waste on my property. The problem is that we haven't applied property rights to certain things (like rivers). This is not an argument for regulation. It's an argument for clearly defined property. Some environmentalists are cult-like and anti-science, but others aren't, just like in all large groups there are rational people and irrational ones. What's new? But those who oppose the current crop of rational environmentalists (a lot of them the very scientists who know most about things like our planet's climate) will one day look like those who opposed the ban on lead in gasoline or anti-smog measures.. No! No! No! Look, if you want to understand a philosophy you absolutely need to look at the "extremists". "Extremist" is a euphemism for consistent and if you look at the consistent followers of the ideology, they're completely evil. I do not accept that a philosophy is evil if followed consistently but good in principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APG12 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I like this take on global warming: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7zL14dMfSO0/TpShEO5bIkI/AAAAAAAAAA0/x8mjNgDFTi0/s1600/hoax.jpg yadayada, please read my first post on this page. Are the environmentalists really aiming for a better world? Is that truly their purpose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraven Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Agalio, China today has technology infinitely more advanced than when the US passed the first coal laws. http://www.takepart.com/photos/amazing-photos-show-1940s-pittsburgh-blanketed-air-pollution/the-collection Technology allows things to get cleaner, but because the costs of all this is harm are externalized and diffused, while the benefits are concentrated and polluters don't pay the price, it often takes regulation to make things happen. Just like it's started to now happen in China and happened everywhere else that got significantly cleaner. So tech is necessary, but not sufficient for a lot of progress on that front. Same with leaded gasoline. It might not have been possible to ban it from the start, but it might still be in today if it was entirely up to gasoline producers to choose, and we'd have kids with lower IQs and more aggressive behaviors... As for dumping waste, you really think that if the only thing stopping people were lawsuits that waterways and the international oceans would be as clean? How many people have you sued in your life? How many middle-class folks could afford to sue when their small lake or river got destroyed, and wouldn't companies often decide it's cheaper to pay lawyers for a few years than do the right thing? Anyway, let's drop it here, you are obviously an ideologue, the very thing you claim to be against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deepValue Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 That other funding sources are hard to come by is irrelevant to my point. Government funding favors climate alarmists (b/c skeptics are obviously ideological nutcases), so you end up with a bunch of climate alarmists getting funding and the others finding new careers. You know this how? Science is not what you think it is. If someone could come up with really solid research based on sound methodology that disproved any of the current consensus, they'd probably win a nobel prize. Some of the big businesses making money on fossil fuels would definitely fund that research. But so far, all they finance doesn't hold up to scrutiny, because the facts aren't in their favor. Exxon funded global warming research until it was threatened with tobacco-style lawsuits if it didn't shut up. I'm completely on board with reducing carbon emissions (if it's done in a way that doesn't cripple the U.S. economy) -- I think it's a terrible idea to radically change the environment given that we don't really understand many of the planet's systems. It just seems silly to me that people who oppose the 'consensus' theory (such as these people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming) don't get the light of day because it threatens environmentalists' religion. My problem is not with people concerned about the environment, it's with the progressives who shut out all opposition in the name of 'science.' In doing so, they've crushed the scientific process that is so important to scientific progress. Of course, they argue that it's already been settled, that climate change is a fact, and that there is no sense in challenging it any longer. Doesn't this seem a little off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APG12 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Agalio, China today has technology infinitely more advanced than when the US passed the first coal laws. http://www.takepart.com/photos/amazing-photos-show-1940s-pittsburgh-blanketed-air-pollution/the-collection Technology allows things to get cleaner, but because the costs of all this is harm are externalized and diffused, while the benefits are concentrated and polluters don't pay the price, it often takes regulation to make things happen. Just like it's started to now happen in China and happened everywhere else that got significantly cleaner. So tech is necessary, but not sufficient for a lot of progress on that front. Same with leaded gasoline. It might not have been possible to ban it from the start, but it might still be in today if it was entirely up to gasoline producers to choose, and we'd have kids with lower IQs and more aggressive behaviors... As for dumping waste, you really think that if the only thing stopping people were lawsuits that waterways and the international oceans would be as clean? How many people have you sued in your life? How many middle-class folks could afford to sue when their small lake or river got destroyed, and wouldn't companies often decide it's cheaper to pay lawyers for a few years than do the right thing? Anyway, let's drop it here, you are obviously an ideologue, the very thing you claim to be against. Oh jeebus. Why doesn't anyone dump their trash on my lawn already? ::) Anyways, I agree let's call it quits. I am an ideologue in defense of reason and reality. There's nothing wrong with ideology, there's something wrong with evil ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikenhe Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? We should only discuss that in a thread about Religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Exxon funded global warming research until it was threatened with tobacco-style lawsuits if it didn't shut up. You're leaving part of the story out. The problem wasn't that it was funding research. The problem was that it was bogus research, with the only purpose of creating doubt and uncertainty in the minds of people, which is basically what the tobacco industry tried to do when science first came out about the harm of cigarettes. I think scientists' problem is not that there are those who don't agree with the consensus. It's that a lot of groups (incl. media) will give as much weight if not more weight to that 1% of dissenters as to the 99% others, and then pretend "well, it's undecided, we just don't know." There's always some people who disagree about everything, including flat earthers and moon landing hoaxers and plate tectonic skeptics and such, but it doesn't make the science any less settled until one of these dissenters comes out with strong enough evidence to show that they actually are right. Until they do that, the strongest evidence wins. The reason why there are over 90% of people who agree is not because they have more friends and have winning smiles, it's because in the eyes of the other experts, their evidence is much stronger. Anyway, I'm done with this thread, I don't feel much is being accomplished anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Oh jeebus. Why doesn't anyone dump their trash on my lawn already? ::) It happens. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/24/us/25sludge2_600.JPG Coal ash spill.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deepValue Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I promise to stop posting too. But I had been trying to find an interview I heard on NPR with a scientist that was trying to build some strange contraption to alter the atmosphere to offset the effects of global warming. I couldn't find it, but here's an article on Yahoo about the crazies I'm most concerned about: http://news.yahoo.com/geo-engineering-no-holy-grail-study-180859576.html;_ylt=AwrBJR9u3QxTs3EAcV7QtDMD This is what scientific arrogance leads to. Blind faith in our ability to understand things we just can't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ_Value Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? Let me just go on record and say that I am a big fan of Kraven. No amount of scientific data will disprove that. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APG12 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Oh jeebus. Why doesn't anyone dump their trash on my lawn already? ::) It happens. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/24/us/25sludge2_600.JPG Coal ash spill.. Shocking! If only we made it MORE illegal. lol ps. If I don't get the last word in, it's like admitting defeat. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch01 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? Let me just go on record and say that I am a big fan of Kraven. No amount of scientific data will disprove that. Ever. That makes you a Kraven ideologue...a "Kradeologue". Let me guess, you DON'T have a portfolio concentrated in 3 stocks, right?! Oh, and I bet you don't think Sears eliminated all of their liabilities when they created the non-guarantor subs. Am I getting close? Friggin' well-poisoning Kradeologues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraven Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? Let me just go on record and say that I am a big fan of Kraven. No amount of scientific data will disprove that. Ever. Of course you are. You have good taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? Kill'em all and feed them to the poor. Solve overpopulation (read The Population Bomb, pretty scary stuff) and world hunger in one fell swoop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraven Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? Let me just go on record and say that I am a big fan of Kraven. No amount of scientific data will disprove that. Ever. That makes you a Kraven ideologue...a "Kradeologue". Let me guess, you DON'T have a portfolio concentrated in 3 stocks, right?! Oh, and I bet you don't think Sears eliminated all of their liabilities when they created the non-guarantor subs. Am I getting close? Friggin' well-poisoning Kradeologues. The movement is sweeping the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ_Value Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? Let me just go on record and say that I am a big fan of Kraven. No amount of scientific data will disprove that. Ever. That makes you a Kraven ideologue...a "Kradeologue". Let me guess, you DON'T have a portfolio concentrated in 3 stocks, right?! Oh, and I bet you don't think Sears eliminated all of their liabilities when they created the non-guarantor subs. Am I getting close? Friggin' well-poisoning Kradeologues. Damn right. You are spot on. And please don't even try looking into who's funding the Kradeologue movement. We don't want any controversy about the biased/unbiased nature of our ideology. Eventually the World will come around and join us, you just wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraven Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? Kill'em all and feed them to the poor. Solve overpopulation (read The Population Bomb, pretty scary stuff) and world hunger in one fell swoop. Interesting stuff. I like these topics. So what religion do people think is the best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? Kill'em all and feed them to the poor. Solve overpopulation (read The Population Bomb, pretty scary stuff) and world hunger in one fell swoop. Interesting stuff. I like these topics. So what religion do people think is the best? I'm an atheist myself, but if I were to pick a god to worship it would probably be Moloch. I don't think he cares all that much about what I do, or what I think or what I eat, and he certainly supports abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ_Value Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? Kill'em all and feed them to the poor. Solve overpopulation (read The Population Bomb, pretty scary stuff) and world hunger in one fell swoop. Interesting stuff. I like these topics. So what religion do people think is the best? Listen, as a true conservative I never fully agreed with us deciding as a people to move on from Zeus. Seriously. What was up with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? Kill'em all and feed them to the poor. Solve overpopulation (read The Population Bomb, pretty scary stuff) and world hunger in one fell swoop. Interesting stuff. I like these topics. So what religion do people think is the best? Listen, as a true conservative I never fully agreed with us deciding as a people to move on from Zeus. Seriously. What was up with that? Zeus was pretty cool, always throwing around those lightning bolts and whatnot, but I've always liked Eris. If I really was to go religious maybe Morlock and his obsession with throwing children into pits of fire is a little extreme (I'll leave burning people to death to the Christians), my next choice would be Discordianism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? We should only discuss that in a thread about Religion. I am glad my mom didn't have an abortion 49 years ago...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? We should only discuss that in a thread about Religion. I am glad my mom didn't have an abortion 49 years ago...... Undoubtedly you think that, but is she glad? (It's the woman's choice after all, not the baby's). Also, while you think that you are happy that she did not have an abortion, I guarantee you that if she had you would not care either way today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now