Climategate Lies - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-06-2010, 11:59 AM   #91
Acrobat
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 459
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post
new zealand was also the only country that allowed women to vote at first. someone always has to be the first to do something. there's public transport to be had, and then you won't be paying more for gas. i can understand why people are up in arms about this, but the world as a whole needs to stop relying on oil so much, especially foreign oil.
Eventually, the people riding the bus will be paying higher fares for the increased cost of gas, not to mention the taxes.
__________________

__________________
Benji2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 12:00 PM   #92
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 12:29 AM
maybe comment when you know what the local situation is
__________________

__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 12:01 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post
new zealand was also the only country that allowed women to vote at first. someone always has to be the first to do something. there's public transport to be had, and then you won't be paying more for gas. i can understand why people are up in arms about this, but the world as a whole needs to stop relying on oil so much, especially foreign oil.
I'm all for investing on research and development. Once a promising technology comes up you can bet venture capitalists will want to seize on it. It's also important to know that technology can develop very gradually and we need to allow for that. Destroying the economy will reduce the capital available for those new technologies. It's well known that richer economies can afford more environmental standards and higher technology. Taxing reliable cheap energy will reduce jobs and the green jobs won't replace them for probably decades (assuming my prediction that we will find a panacea technology in decades and not later). It's foolhardy. The main target for the G20 was the economy. We have to have priorities. You can't push for economic growth and then saddle the world economy with world energy taxes. Also if countries try and do something first (like energy taxes) why do business there? Cap and trade was for a worldwide solution to reduce CO2 not because we want to replace finite fossil fuels. We can't just use a solution to one issue and then when the science doesn't pan out make up a quick excuse to use cap and trade for another issue. It screams of powergrab to me.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 12:01 PM   #94
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You calling them quacks and talking about the "true" science simply means that you will ignore political affiliation with the U.N. because appeal to authority works on you better than it does on me.
FAIL

I looked at the science that was not related to the UN first and foremost, but nice try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
It's not about a resume.
Can you send me a link to any of these scientist that believe the more CO2 the better, and who have tested it on a larger scale?

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
It's up to the people making the claims to prove themselves not the rest of the public to hand over sovreignty to scientists (who financially benefit)
Do you know any of the rich scientists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
BTW BVS the reason why there is a political backlash against AGW is precisely because AGW has political and economic consequences. Why should I ignore politics and economics? Who's bringing up the subject first? Isn't worldwide cap and trade related to politics and economics?
I'm not saying ignore politics and economics, I'm just saying do not allow politics and economics to influence what science you believe in.

Politics and to a lesser degree economics is subjective, do not allow the subjective to shape the objective. Some of the most dangerous mistakes in history have happened that way.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 12:13 PM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
FAIL

I looked at the science that was not related to the UN first and foremost, but nice try.
And? You didn't like it because you are convinced that CO2 will increase the temperature 6 degrees in the next 100 years? What about those computer projections that even in the Climategate emails shows that there are missing natural and manmade effects not properly understood and accounted for in the code for the projections?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Can you send me a link to any of these scientist that believe the more CO2 the better, and who have tested it on a larger scale?
I did. CO2 science is the website that displays those studies. You call them quacks but they are scientists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Do you know any of the rich scientists?
I don't know of poor government bureaucrats. Certainly after what is known about what Phil Jones collected you should be embarrassed to ask this question. World cap and trade would involve trillions. Scientists are always looking for a steady source of cash flow (like everybody else). To admit errors may mean finding another job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I'm not saying ignore politics and economics, I'm just saying do not allow politics and economics to influence what science you believe in.
So if the politics and economics proposed by the U.N. won't reduce CO2 without catastrophic economics why should we do it? It's either an emergency or not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. BTW many of the scientists on the IPCC are much more guarded on their opinions than viewed on the policy summary which is created by politicians. It is possible that the science is actually not conclusive enough to justify the political and economic remedies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Politics and to a lesser degree economics is subjective, do not allow the subjective to shape the objective. Some of the most dangerous mistakes in history have happened that way.
More famous last words.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 12:25 PM   #96
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
And? You didn't like it because you are convinced that CO2 will increase the temperature 6 degrees in the next 100 years? What about those computer projections that even in the Climategate emails shows that there are missing natural and manmade effects not properly understood and accounted for in the code for the projections?
I didn't like what? You do realize that there is science outside of the UN that supports climate change as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I did. CO2 science is the website that displays those studies. You call them quacks but they are scientists.
Oh, I thought you meant someone who's actually done the studies on a large scale. CO2 science is just a website that collects editorials that support their cause.



Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I don't know of poor government bureaucrats. Certainly after what is known about what Phil Jones collected you should be embarrassed to ask this question. World cap and trade would involve trillions. Scientists are always looking for a steady source of cash flow (like everybody else). To admit errors may mean finding another job.
Is this how you feel about all scientists?


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
So if the politics and economics proposed by the U.N. won't reduce CO2 without catastrophic economics why should we do it? It's either an emergency or not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. BTW many of the scientists on the IPCC are much more guarded on their opinions than viewed on the policy summary which is created by politicians. It is possible that the science is actually not conclusive enough to justify the political and economic remedies.
I think your biggest problem in grasping this is that you're thinking in the now, in the box, and can't think beyond that.

In the overall realm of things lifelong planet wise, yes it is an emergency. I think the problem is too many of you can't think beyond your own lives or pocketbooks. It's a shame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post

More famous last words.
Do you not agree? Really?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 01:03 PM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I didn't like what? You do realize that there is science outside of the UN that supports climate change as well.
And what do they say about CO2 affecting the climate? Enlighten me. It's fun seeing you throw the IPCC under the bus. That's a good start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Oh, I thought you meant someone who's actually done the studies on a large scale. CO2 science is just a website that collects editorials that support their cause.
Creates editorials based on science. My point is that scientists don't have a consensus and are still doing the work. We shouldn't stop the work and make policies before solid evidence is brought out. It probably will take decades for us to understand how the natural climate system works. Everyone is supporting a cause. The problem is which one is closer to the absolute truth? None can be the absolute truth at this point, but only approximate it maybe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Is this how you feel about all scientists?
No just the ones that want to rob me with bogus projections which they are now backing away from (Jones, Mann).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I think your biggest problem in grasping this is that you're thinking in the now, in the box, and can't think beyond that.
Again this is another statement that can be reverted onto you. The people making claims that man-made CO2 is creating a current crisis haven't been able to back it up. This is already confirmed by Jones.

BTW this concept of "thinking outside the box" is one of the most overused cliches which people use to vaguely dodge an argument. The "box" or "paradigm" or "concept" that is being talked about is that CO2 is the main climate driver. I'm saying this concept or box is too simple an explanation and the scientists will have to develop a much more complicated paradigm to match the ultra complicated reality of the world. Concepts are not absolute reality. They can be useful when they mimic reality closely. The reality is that we have to get scientists (not just climate scientists) from all disciplines including Geology, Astrophysics, climate scientists, ocean scientists, biologists etc. to come up with enough good science so that a possible big picture paradigm can be created so we can actually see our effect on nature and it's effect on us and what we can actually control. Currently we are nowhere near that.

Blacklisting scientists who disagree with the current paradigm will actually slow the scientific process down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
In the overall realm of things lifelong planet wise, yes it is an emergency. I think the problem is too many of you can't think beyond your own lives or pocketbooks. It's a shame.
Is that what you think of people who care about their pocketbooks? Conservatives believe that liberals have no compassion for taxpayers and I think this is more evidence of that. I do not for one second believe that you don't care about your pocketbook and I don't believe that special interest groups and rent seekers that will benefit from cap and trade don't care about making money.

Tell me, why should a taxpayer feel guilty for keeping money they EARNED and those who collect from a regulation (unearned money) shouldn't? You've got the cart before the horse. We want green jobs to EARN their way. It's not an entitlement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Do you not agree? Really?
There is no consensus on CO2. Even the Royal Society has to now allow for different points of view. It's almost like talking to people who have amnesia and can't remember important recent facts. With the debacle on IPCC reports there has to be more study done before we blame a trace gas as a main cause for climate change, because you do realise there is a thing called natural climate change don't you?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 01:15 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:29 AM
More inaccurate predictions from the Nixon library (1969):

http://nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibra...s/jul10/56.pdf

Quote:
The process is a simple one. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the effect of a pane of glass in a greenhouse. The C02 content is normally in a stable cycle, but recently man has begun to introduce instability through the burning of fossil fuels. At the turn of the century several persons raised the question whether this would change the temperature of the atmosphere. Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has corne along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth' s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York.
Goodbye Washington, for that matter. We have no data on Seattle.
This prediction was bad and current predictions missed even when they were only months away. We obviously have to do more due diligence before we commit trillions of dollars, because the process is not a "simple one".
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 01:21 PM   #99
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
And what do they say about CO2 affecting the climate? Enlighten me. It's fun seeing you throw the IPCC under the bus. That's a good start.
Not throwing anyone under any bus, I'm just letting you know that there is science outside the UN that has the same findings.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Creates editorials based on science. My point is that scientists don't have a consensus and are still doing the work. We shouldn't stop the work and make policies before solid evidence is brought out. It probably will take decades for us to understand how the natural climate system works. Everyone is supporting a cause. The problem is which one is closer to the absolute truth? None can be the absolute truth at this point, but only approximate it maybe.
So you're going to wait until every scientist agrees? Do you know where we would be if we had always done this?

My point, take a look at the scientist you post. Backyard experiments, you seem to post a lot of editorials rather than actual papers, if you really took a step back you would recognise the junk science, it's pretty easy to sight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
No just the ones that want to rob me with bogus projections which they are now backing away from (Jones, Mann).
So all the scientist that have the same findings and living on meager means don't count.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Is that what you think of people who care about their pocketbooks? Conservatives believe that liberals have no compassion for taxpayers and I think this is more evidence of that. I do not for one second believe that you don't care about your pocketbook and I don't believe that special interest groups and rent seekers that will benefit from cap and trade don't care about making money.
You really have a way glancing over the obvious. I said those that can't think BEYOND their pocketbooks. Not everyone votes, thinks, or works purely for their own self interest, if we did most of us would be Republicans

Do I look after my own pocketbook? Of course, but it doesn't mean I'm going to allow it to dictate what's right or wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Tell me, why should a taxpayer feel guilty for keeping money they EARNED and those who collect from a regulation (unearned money) shouldn't? You've got the cart before the horse. We want green jobs to EARN their way. It's not an entitlement.
Where did I say anything about guilt? You've been listening to too much Glenn.

Do you have any links about these green jobs where people just get paid to do nothing?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 01:23 PM   #100
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
More inaccurate predictions from the Nixon library (1969):

http://nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibra...s/jul10/56.pdf



This prediction was bad and current predictions missed even when they were only months away. We obviously have to do more due diligence before we commit trillions of dollars, because the process is not a "simple one".
You realize this was a memo and not a scientific paper, right?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 02:08 PM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:29 AM


Al Gore has a fever.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 02:11 PM   #102
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,887
Local Time: 06:29 AM
^ Hydro-electric power?
__________________
Bluer White is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 02:20 PM   #103
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Diamond?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 02:22 PM   #104
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 06:29 AM
I think it's supposed to be a sex crazed poodle

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 03:27 PM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:29 AM
I don't get it.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com