Cuz Merica

[Dguy210]

You know nothing about how the academic scientific community's peer review system works, but you believe oil companies are more honest about the environment than those stupid evil conniving scientists. First off, every scientist and college are competing for the same pool of funding in a particular field of study. If someone's data or method of analysis is shit, there would be 500 peers lined up to shoot it down. 

 

Um, I am scientist and that is not how any of that really works.  It sort of seems that way to lay people I guess, but remember scientists are people too.

 

Big names push their own agendas and most funding comes from 2 sources, 1) the government predominately, and 2) private funding/companies. You do keep to certain lines of research because that is how it gets funded and many things for funding are about name recognition or who you know. Also, there are many instances of private companies (Big pharma) nudging studies to get results they want.

 

Remember "lies, damn lies, and statistics"- Mark Twain

 

Note: I'm not arguing about climate change here at all, just your idea of scientists. Also, remember outside of their extremely narrow field scientists are wrong about a lot of stuff. There is even a specific trope about an expert in one field over thinking their ability in another field and it is a real thing that has happened many many times to senior scientists pontificating on stuff that they are not informed about.

[Soundline]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File%3A2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

Umm... yeah so look at it over a longer period of time. Put it in perspective.

 

 

This is called scientific evidence. We're up 0.4 degrees C however were only 0.2 deg C above where the average was 1,000 years ago. Also... the graph is shifted to show you what they want you to see. This is good science. Not looking at a narrow snapshot that displays Mr. Gore's theory.

 

The Pacific Northwest National Labratory has asked for additional funding as their evidence is "inconclusive" regarding global warming and its affects. Don't spin this bullshit at me, I read the actual reports. Not what MSM spews. I'm open to any effective, scientific evidence that shows we have a correctable problem. Until I see it, it's a unicorn.

 

Show me where 90% of science agrees on it.

[Dguy210]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File%3A2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

Umm... yeah so look at it over a longer period of time. Put it in perspective.

This is called scientific evidence. We're up 0.4 degrees C however were only 0.2 deg C above where the average was 1,000 years ago. Also... the graph is shifted to show you what they want you to see. This is good science. Not looking at a narrow snapshot that displays Mr. Gore's theory.

 

The Pacific Northwest National Labratory has asked for additional funding as their evidence is "inconclusive" regarding global warming and its affects. Don't spin this bullshit at me, I read the actual reports. Not what MSM spews. I'm open to any effective, scientific evidence that shows we have a correctable problem. Until I see it, it's a unicorn.

 

Show me where 90% of science agrees on it.

 

 

I wonder if you older folks here will remember the 70s when everybody was worried about "global cooling".

[Dguy210]

I find it easy to break it all down this way:

 

1. Do humans have an effect on climate and the environment? 

Yes. And they have for thousands of years. Overgrazing has been put to blame for the Sahara desert for instance.

 

2. Should we invest in renewable resources and energy sources?

Yes. Waste is inefficiency. But it must make sense, not just be done to "green wash" or make people feel good. Nuclear would be a real good start here.

 

3. Is "climate change" used as an economic control system?

Yes. Independent of any benefit that may be seen (e.g., greater good reasoning) it is used as a means of control or shift wealth around (example: carbon credit nonsense).

 

4. Are we all going to die?

Yes. Life is 100% fatal, get over it.

 

5. Are we destroying the Earth?

Tough question, but No. Are we making parts of it crappier, well yes and we should probably not do that.

 

You want my take on all this? Don't worry about chasing the diminishing tails on certain things in life; reducing all risks or truly statistically rare occurrences, hell I would lump many laws and gun control in with this, people die sometimes. Chasing after a few hundred deaths out of millions of people is a poor application of resources. But it does make for a good way for the government to brandish control and be seen to be "doing something".  

 

For instance, I don't want to hear about reducing power usage by 10% by doing a bunch of things that majorly impact quality of life, I want to hear about building a bunch of new power plants that produce 200% more energy etc... efficiency only gets you so far and the consequences can sometimes offset the benefits.

 

People are unfortunately extremely bad at judging real risks and costs, it is like worrying about the risk of crashing and dying while taking an airplane flight, where as the car ride over to the airport was at least a magnitude of order or more more likely to kill you, but you had the illusion of control of the situation. 

 

In the end always ask yourself when hearing about pending calamities that require major changes or will cost you money or life quality "who is making money off this?"

 

 

steps off soapbox....

[Soundline]

You can see it dip before it goes up.... riiiiight where the 70's are.

 

Again I need to see real effective science. I've sat in too many lecture halls listening to assholes argue about this topic.

[Dguy210]

You can see it dip before it goes up.... riiiiight where the 70's are.

 

Again I need to see real effective science. I've sat in too many lecture halls listening to assholes argue about this topic.

Been in a lot of lecture halls hearing people talk about something myself that a few years later is proven to work very differently. 

 

I have the great fortune or maybe misfortune to having been on the right end of a scientific debate which at the time was controversial and is now the accepted status. But trying to get funding or peer reviewed with the data? Total pain in the ass as it did not meet the accepted standard, and that was for something very picayune in nature.

 

So really while there are some very good guesses on how things work at the end of the day with the climate it is still a giant ass pull on a lot of, an educated ass pull with some supporting data at times, but still at the end of day just someones best guess on how things will be.

 

Best working model right now states that stable climate and seasons are actually an anomaly as far as the history of the Earth goes. Only in the last 12,000 years has the weather been relatively stable, which granted has allowed for the rise of agriculture and civilization as we know it.  

[Dguy210]

Rant incoming:

 

I don't want people to tell me how the climate is going to change and we all need to do this hooky shit to keep it from changing, tell me how you want to change the climate to what we want. I want to see working models on seeding the oceans with iron, ideas for pollution sucking industrial plants, methods for reducing the severity of tropical storms, etc... humans are remarkably adaptable and inventive so this attitude of "we need to prevent this from happening" is inherently bullshit, tell me how we can adapt and overcome. 

 

Frankly, the whole idea of we must protect the "fragile Mother Earth" and "human activity is evil, unnatural" and destroying nature, sickens me and is bullshit. Nature is cruel and inhospitable, and the planet has been trying (and almost succeeding) in killing us off for years. So I say "Fuck Mother Earth!" we are the masters of are fates and the hands to control nature. Some dippy ass animal can't adapt (I'm looking at you condors) well fuck them, natural selection has wiped out many other species that can't change.

 

Humans are a part of Nature after all and we've been swinging the big dick of progress around for a long time, but now we need to wrap it in a layer of "you can't do that" because you'll change things? Well FUCK that, we are made to change things and that bitch Nature will heel to us, we shape the world to our needs, it is only by our merciful grace that we can even worry about some minor creature going extinct.

 

I want a planet with clean air and clean water and trees and nice outdoor areas because I live here and I like nice things, but I will damn well fuck the shit out of a biome to get there.

[john510]

And users? And guys you don't like, but you have cardboard, a marker , and can spell junky?

 

Seriously. Have a problem with your neighbors? Don't call the cops. They're busy. Just murder the whole family and hang a sign on the door saying "drug house" or something similar. The government will not investigate.

 

But you're right. Great guy. They call him the trump of the east.

It was a simple statement,don't overreact.

[john510]

You know nothing about how the academic scientific community's peer review system works, but you believe oil companies are more honest about the environment than those stupid evil conniving scientists. First off, every scientist and college are competing for the same pool of funding in a particular field of study. If someone's data or method of analysis is shit, there would be 500 peers lined up to shoot it down. The idea that the scientific communities of multiple countries, and scores of colleges around the world are all in collusion to help government break up unions is moronic at best. Obviously you've never attended a scientific convention. Shit, they cant even agree on the best color for the name tags, and yet multiple fields of study and over 90% of the entire climatology community agree that humans are contributing a sharp raise in global temp. Trust me, Among scientists that level of consensus is fucking unheard of.  

 

For the life of me, I don't understand why conservatives have turned their back on responsible conservatorship of the land. I remember when protecting nature was patriotic, and naturalists were ultra conservative. WTF happened? Oh ya, political funding. 

Conservatives haven't turned their backs on responsible conservatorship of the land.They've turned their backs to the crazy,hippie,tree hugging lunatics that find a bug on a tree and want to declare a million acres of forest off limits to everybody for anything but a walk through the trees.Did you hear about what Obama did with Federal land as he walked out the door ? why wait so long ?

[125 CSL]

I find it easy to break it all down this way:

 

1. Do humans have an effect on climate and the environment? 

Yes. And they have for thousands of years. Overgrazing has been put to blame for the Sahara desert for instance.

 

2. Should we invest in renewable resources and energy sources?

Yes. Waste is inefficiency. But it must make sense, not just be done to "green wash" or make people feel good. Nuclear would be a real good start here.

 

3. Is "climate change" used as an economic control system?

Yes. Independent of any benefit that may be seen (e.g., greater good reasoning) it is used as a means of control or shift wealth around (example: carbon credit nonsense).

 

4. Are we all going to die?

Yes. Life is 100% fatal, get over it.

 

5. Are we destroying the Earth?

Tough question, but No. Are we making parts of it crappier, well yes and we should probably not do that.

 

You want my take on all this? Don't worry about chasing the diminishing tails on certain things in life; reducing all risks or truly statistically rare occurrences, hell I would lump many laws and gun control in with this, people die sometimes. Chasing after a few hundred deaths out of millions of people is a poor application of resources. But it does make for a good way for the government to brandish control and be seen to be "doing something".  

 

For instance, I don't want to hear about reducing power usage by 10% by doing a bunch of things that majorly impact quality of life, I want to hear about building a bunch of new power plants that produce 200% more energy etc... efficiency only gets you so far and the consequences can sometimes offset the benefits.

 

People are unfortunately extremely bad at judging real risks and costs, it is like worrying about the risk of crashing and dying while taking an airplane flight, where as the car ride over to the airport was at least a magnitude of order or more more likely to kill you, but you had the illusion of control of the situation. 

 

In the end always ask yourself when hearing about pending calamities that require major changes or will cost you money or life quality "who is making money off this?"

 

 

steps off soapbox....

No one gets out of here alive.

 

Sheep and goats are the most destructive animals alive. Lesson China learned. both are not allowed to random graze anywhere. Efforts went into terraforming large areas of waste land are now green. It is kind of simple. Instead we have to fund "climate change/global warming" science research.

(hell something simple like restricting the movement of sheep and goats to pens across any land near the equator would have a staggering effect on green space, what is the side effect of more plants you got it)

 

Now for the live wire. Population control. India, middle east, Africa, Central America. One other area China figured out long ago.

[VFR800]

[Dguy210]

Conservatives haven't turned their backs on responsible conservatorship of the land.They've turned their backs to the crazy,hippie,tree hugging lunatics that find a bug on a tree and want to declare a million acres of forest off limits to everybody for anything but a walk through the trees.Did you hear about what Obama did with Federal land as he walked out the door ? why wait so long ?

Exactly, you know who put some of the most money towards conserving the land and wild animals? Hunters and fishers. 

 

All of it is about control and always will be. The tree hugger doesn't care about some rare bug, they just don't want people "using" the land at all really.

[Dguy210]

 

Saw this earlier and laughed out loud. You know why, because it is a clever play on words. Is Trump Hitler? No that is ridiculous but it can be funny, and the ability for people to laugh at themselves or challenge their beliefs is sorely missing from a lot of the new liberal movement, you just get "if you don't agree with me then you are a racist, bigot, etc...."

[Dolomite]

Why, because she's a Black Woman who's more successful than Trump?

That's a pretty asshat assumption, even from you. It's actually a reference to the madtv sketches but feel free to continue acting like a presumptive prick.

[VFR800]

Saw this earlier and laughed out loud. You know why, because it is a clever play on words. Is Trump Hitler? No that is ridiculous but it can be funny, and the ability for people to laugh at themselves or challenge their beliefs is sorely missing from a lot of the new liberal movement, you just get "if you don't agree with me then you are a racist, bigot, etc...."

 

Yeah,I like to always keep the humour in the mix cause obviously whilst there's the "serious" side it can get all a bit too fucking much if we're serious ALL the time.

[Dguy210]

Now for the live wire. Population control. India, middle east, Africa, Central America. One other area China figured out long ago.

 

The China policy while a proactive attempt at population control was/is seriously flawed and due to cultural reasons has resulted in a serious imbalance in the gender ratio. Not sure how that will end up biting us in the ass later, or if the trends in, social interaction, reduced mate seeking, and social withdrawal seen in other parts of the world with the rise of online interactions will even it out. Or maybe this will push the rise of sexbots that replace women, meh, who knows.

 

What seems to work best for evening out population growth is education and an increase in the quality of living. Best estimates I've seen from several sources on predicting population trends says that world population should peak at about 10 billion or so in the next 50 years and then dip down slightly to a steady state. Much of that will be in parts of SouthEast Asia, heavily industrialized countries will see native population growth decrease only to be replaced by immigration. Once again, these are predictions, but they are based on observing current trends and projecting them, as with any predictions they suffer at the bias of the person doing them, but the assumptions do seem reasonable. Of course, it totally ignores outside circumstances that might happen or major cultural shifts that might occur in quality of life for various reasons.

[john510]

Exactly, you know who put some of the most money towards conserving the land and wild animals? Hunters and fishers. 

 

All of it is about control and always will be. The tree hugger doesn't care about some rare bug, they just don't want people "using" the land at all really.

Very true.And about that control thing,the enviro's have it even when others try to use common sense as an argument.The Sierra club is a perfect example of people taking things away from others because they don't participate or enjoy a certain hobby.I ride my quads in the Imperial sand dunes.It's a pretty big area 20 or so miles long.There's a flower that grows there called the purple milk vetch.The Sierra club was so concerned about us riders killing it to extinction that they fought for years to close the dunes completely but could only get sections closed off.Now guess where that flower seems to be the most abundant ? It's everywhere there's a trail that gets heavy traffic and hardly any at all in the protected zones.Nice job with the science and wasting taxpayer money funding the studies to close riding areas.

[Jesse C.]

[RatVonDude]

Can we just skip the Muslim ban and build wall around Saudia Arabia and call it a life. Throw the Clintons in there to broaden the scum growth

[heywier427]

The day after tomorrow is on right now...Wtf :)

[240zness]

..and then a wall around boston :)

 

Anyone watching Daytona?

[q-tip]

..and then a wall around boston :)

 

Anyone watching Daytona?

And California.

[Draker]

Progress! The FBI is getting chaff'd

 

[Draker]

We have the best Datto's, don't we folks?

[Rhapakatui]

Yup. Buy American by Americans. Scrap all those foreign made POSes. Matter of fact, I'm such a patriot, that I will personally scrap them for you.

 

Just drop any foreign cars you may be harboring by my place. I will gladly give you the estimated scrap value plus 5% for your patriotism.