Republican-Controlled Committee Legislates That Climate Change Does Not Exist

[Thor]

Just have to commend Photon, again, I find it very difficult to read this thread so I took a week away from even opening it.

I spend a lot of my free time reading science journals, websites, watching sci docs, and following breaking stories in all fields of science. I'm far from some expert, just a geeky follower of this kind of news.

Its so utterly frustrating to watch all the various sources of science talk about the many cogs in the wheel contributing to global warming, from natural to human made, to its effects on oceans, wildlife, habitats, etc.. When coming here to see people completely refute what we are seeing its very frustrating.

I and others here keep saying obviously we don´t know the future and the apocalyptic stuff is rather self defeating rhetoric, nor do we want to bankrupt and panic the world. Its just a matter of moving past this nonsense and figuring out sensible directions we can take while being able to make it economically viable and of course to benefit our planet.

I see this as more of a responsible citizen type ideal than some environmental movement.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Thor

Just have to commend Photon, again, I find it very difficult to read this thread so I took a week away from even opening it.

I spend a lot of my free time reading science journals, websites, watching sci docs, and following breaking stories in all fields of science. I'm far from some expert, just a geeky follower of this kind of news.

Its so utterly frustrating to watch all the various sources of science talk about the many cogs in the wheel contributing to global warming, from natural to human made, to its effects on oceans, wildlife, habitats, etc.. When coming here to see people completely refute what we are seeing its very frustrating.

I and others here keep saying obviously we don´t know the future and the apocalyptic stuff is rather self defeating rhetoric, nor do we want to bankrupt and panic the world. Its just a matter of moving past this nonsense and figuring out sensible directions we can take while being able to make it economically viable and of course to benefit our planet.

I see this as more of a responsible citizen type ideal than some environmental movement.

Yes it is stressful when difficult questions are dared to be asked (and avoided) and sheeple don't just follow and obey. It is stressful to laboriously build those straw men and then kick the liv'n tar sands out of them. I mean.....the self righteous are so burdened with universal self righteousness! Seriously...save all of us all from your martyrdom. Try and come down to Earth from heaven and walk with us mortals for a while. Honestly, you and photon need to get over yourselves.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

I did reply, I said you were entitled to your opinion (which is obviously an implicit way of saying your opinion is factually incorrect).



So the way to admit that you were wrong and apologize for it when you said someone lied but are then shown to be wrong is to never mention it again?



I'm not playing victim, you accused me of lying when I didn't. You accused me of not providing information when I did so in the very next post (and again six months later lol).

If I was playing victim I would actually be pointing these things out in order to justify manipulating you or justify abusing you in some way, when the reason I'm pointing these things out is because they are wrong and people who habitually present incorrect information must be stood up to.

Which is kind of funny, you actually DO some victim playing in this thread, where you accuse me of not watching the video and responding just because of who you are in order to undermine my opinion of the video.

Psychologist analyze thyself.

Did you figure out what the lie was yet?

Whatever victim. Sorry for oppressing you. But think of the street cred you have now!

[Tinordi]

Is it possible to ban people from posting in specific threads?

[troutman]

"Take all the fools out of this world and there wouldn't be any fun living in it, or profit."
Billings, Josh

"It is the peculiar quality of a fool to perceive the faults of others and to forget his own."
Cicero, Marcus T.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Whatever victim. Sorry for oppressing you. But think of the street cred you have now!

Wait. We can dismiss arguments about victimization by calling them a victim again? I'm in.

[Flash Walken]

Instead of asking others to police this thread, why don't we do it ourselves?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Is it possible to ban people from posting in specific threads?

We should have a BAN HERETIC button!!! Screw the THANKS button. Lets ban disagreement on ANY item we hold dear! Absolutely! What a grand idea!

Now we have a threefold need of people needing to get over themselves.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by flash walken

instead of asking others to police this thread, why don't we do it ourselves?

I win.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Try and come down to Earth from heaven and walk with us mortals for a while.

Actually, this wouldn't be an issue if they were up in heaven. It's the Earth we're worried about.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by HOZ

We should have a BAN HERETIC button!!! Screw the THANKS button. Lets ban disagreement on ANY item we hold dear! Absolutely! What a grand idea!

Now we have a threefold need of people needing to get over themselves.

Well when your last four posts have all been mindless attacks, it has moved from healthy disagreement to childish venting. Oh and don't bother with your next post...I'm over myself.

[GreenLantern]

I lost my job last spring due to budget cuts by the provincial government. They blew up our Climatology department and everyone was either let go or re located. I took this very personal, but my Supervisor laid some wisdom on me a few weeks ago while we were hiking up Mount Allen to do some data logging at our ridge line station. He told me a story about a feller out of the University of Manitoba. The guy once showed him a list of topics and titles he had produced over the course of 20 years to gain grants for his research. Not a single tittle included polar bears except the very first, and at the end of the day all he did was research polar bears. Climate change research has been on going longer than most people think, it just hasn't been labelled the same. The "buzz words" are constantly changing and always will be. At the end of the day, my Supervisor and those like him will always be researching the earth's natural processes like Hydrology, and in turn the effect that everything under the sun including humans has on it. To not include them would be foolish, it'd be cheating your research.

I had the pleasure of accidentally running into world renowned Physicist Nigel Smith a few nights ago at a Japanese restaurant. We were seated at the same table and I over heard them talking science, so naturally I joined it. He came to the pub with us for a few beer after and we got into the politics of it. He elaborated how much scrutiny the world of physics under goes with research and the difficulty of obtaining grants. So it isn't just climate change research that gets hit with adversity, its every field of science. For some reason though my research is the scape goat of the day.

For these reasons I am not allowed to use the words "climate change" in my thesis tittle, instead we are looking at "climate variability and its effect on natural hydrologic processes."

But at the end of the day, I am going to be researching climate change, and so will those after me.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

But at the end of the day, I am going to be researching climate change, and so will those after me.

Sheeple!!

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

deleted. wrong thread

[jammies]

Originally Posted by HOZ

We should have a BAN HERETIC button!!! Screw the THANKS button. Lets ban disagreement on ANY item we hold dear! Absolutely! What a grand idea!

There's a considerable difference between reasoned disagreement and incoherent yammering. You accuse others of your own main flaw - you work backwards from what you believe to find arguments to support your position, and are unable to comprehend the flaws in your reasoning because of it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by jammies

There's a considerable difference between reasoned disagreement and incoherent yammering. You accuse others of your own main flaw - you work backwards from what you believe to find arguments to support your position, and are unable to comprehend the flaws in your reasoning because of it.

No I think the problem is your and others intolerance. You believe what you believe and call any question of it ignorance. You believe any scientist who questions your belief is either paid off or incompetent. You believe any news agency who raises questions is unreliable; any politician ignorant. Any study questioning orthodoxy is disregarded as flawed.

I can't count the number of times I've heard that "the vast majority of scientists agree that man is causing global warming" as if the vast majority of scientist have never gotten something wrong. There is a large scale denial of the influence money plays in the steering of research and the role human pride and ego plays into the blinding of even great scientific minds.

If man is behind global warming then we are going to have to adjust to the consequences because there is no chance carbon fuel will be replaced until we run out of it or find a better producer of energy. Carbon credits and other solutions just amount to a grab at wealth by politicians. They won't effect the amount of carbon being released. They just change where it is being released and who gains the economic benefit from it.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by photon

Sheeple!!

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No I think the problem is your and others intolerance. You believe what you believe and call any question of it ignorance. You believe any scientist who questions your belief is either paid off or incompetent. You believe any news agency who raises questions is unreliable; any politician ignorant. Any study questioning orthodoxy is disregarded as flawed.

I don't "believe" anything at all. I am reasonably certain you are incapable of understanding people that don't think like you do, whereas you are utterly certain that I don't understand people that don't think like I do. Contrary to *your* expectations, this indicates that I am much more likely to be correct in my opinion than you are in yours, because I am willing to entertain error and you are not.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You believe what you believe and call any question of it ignorance.

You're missing an important point. Questioning it based on ideology, bad science, or a simple roll of the dice is what's bad.

Questioning it based on good science is an excellent thing to do. The problem is the amount of actual good science that questions it is actually very small.

People are welcome to make arguments based on science, post scientific papers, etc. However that almost never is the case, deniers seem to post links to newspaper articles, books, or blogs, which can say anything without having to actually support what they say.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I can't count the number of times I've heard that "the vast majority of scientists agree that man is causing global warming"

That's because it's true. There's no national science organization anywhere that doesn't hold that position.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

as if the vast majority of scientist have never gotten something wrong.

This is a logical fallacy. Just because a scientist or group of scientists have been wrong in the past does not mean they are wrong now. Just because a group of scientists have been RIGHT in the past does not mean they are right now.

The majority of scientists say the earth is an oblate spheroid, but scientists have gotten things wrong before so they must be wrong about that by that logic.

No one claims infallibility, as always if there is contrary evidence it should be presented, science has proven it will change its position given contrary evidence.

I've changed my position on many aspects of science based on contrary evidence, including with AGW. I'm open to changing again.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There is a large scale denial of the influence money plays in the steering of research and the role human pride and ego plays into the blinding of even great scientific minds.

So you say, but most of the research around climate change isn't actually steered towards conclusions that support AGW because it isn't directly related to climate at all. Studying corals or trees or animal populations or crops or migration times or any of the thousands of other things aren't directly related to AGW, but support it.

But I posted a list of research grants available and no one linked to the ones where the big money was being given based on supporting preconceived results.

Without evidence of this, this is just a convenient claim to confirm a desired bias.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If man is behind global warming then we are going to have to adjust to the consequences because there is no chance carbon fuel will be replaced until we run out of it or find a better producer of energy.

I wouldn't say no chance, but it will be very difficult yes. How easy or difficult has no relevance to the veracity of AGW.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Carbon credits and other solutions just amount to a grab at wealth by politicians.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but again this has no relevance to the veracity of AGW.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They won't effect the amount of carbon being released. They just change where it is being released and who gains the economic benefit from it.

Well in theory if you say "from 2011 to 2031 the total amount inside the free carbon credit market goes from 100 tons to 80 tons", then yes it would. Assuming perfect reporting and enforcement, which obviously isn't realistic, but the question would then be is it good enough to still accomplish the goal.

And obviously someone will profit in a market, why is that good when it's one kind of market but not good when its another?

[Tinordi]

Excellent post Photon.