Sure, but it's something to think about. They have broken news stories on that program. I think we should also be skeptical of the main stream media as well on a lot of topics.
You totally had me actually considering what you had to say until this point.
I once had a coworker who would come in every Wednesday and listen to Coast to Coast. The only thing that ever came close to 'something to think about' was if the person in question was actually crazy or was lying to obtain some type of profit/fame/whatever.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
I think we should also be skeptical of the main stream media as well on a lot of topics.
Well of course, that's why it's always a good idea to read the science behind the newspaper article. Sometimes they get it wrong because of ideology *coughDailyMailcough* but very often it's just ignorance. Accurately reporting science requires some understanding and not many media outlets would pay or bother to have someone on staff that can do a good job of it.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Mr. Transplant, I think there is a documentary you, and others who question the validity of climate change, need to watch. I'm not going to say it is the greatest source of information or that the findings are irrefutable, but it does present data in way that is easy to comprehend and absolutely stunning in its efficacy of driving the point home. It should be noted that the guy behind the project was supposedly a skeptic, but this project that he documents changed his mind. Give it a watch. It might help you understand the issue a little better.
I'm not saying acting now is a bad idea, I'm saying your post was hyperbole.
That's the biggest reason reasonable people dislike global warming advocates. They're often a lot like SebC on a crusade for no suburbs.
And people dislike global warming deniers because of their strawman arguments. I'm not on a crusade for no suburbs, I'm on a crusade for suburbs that pay for themselves.
(Likewise, if you're going to emit CO2, I have no problems with that if you're paying for the externalities. It should be a level playing field though, i.e. if you make CO2 pay for its externalities, but don't do the same for alternative energy sources, you actually end up with a sub-optimal level of fossil fuel use.)
There's also a fair bit of hypocrisy in calling Tinordi's argument a hyperbole, then using one yourself in your description of my arguments.
Sorry for trying to get you to care about a problem that will affect you significantly.
I never said I don't care about global warming, or even that I disagreed with you about it. (maybe re-read my posts) All I said was that your post was attacked a group of people as opposed to their ideas. If you want to convince others of your position, you should stick to ideas instead of sarcastic personal attacks.
Also, I said you over-enthusiastically presented things that aren't provable (opinions of scientists != facts about the future) as a truism, which is an aggressive presentation and requires that new information or ideas don't arise to solve the problem.
My only disagreement is with your style of argument, which is condescending and ineffective. You are of course more than welcome to continue down that path, my only point was that you are unlikely to achieve the results that you seek by doing so.
And people dislike global warming deniers because of their strawman arguments. I'm not on a crusade for no suburbs, I'm on a crusade for suburbs that pay for themselves.
(Likewise, if you're going to emit CO2, I have no problems with that if you're paying for the externalities. It should be a level playing field though, i.e. if you make CO2 pay for its externalities, but don't do the same for alternative energy sources, you actually end up with a sub-optimal level of fossil fuel use.)
There's also a fair bit of hypocrisy in calling Tinordi's argument a hyperbole, then using one yourself in your description of my arguments.
Fair enough, that's an excellent point. I'll amend. "They're a lot like SebC in his quest for economically sustainable development, loudly hammering the same point home over and over again"
Does that suffice?
My sentence about you was intended as partially tongue in cheek, since I don't think we disagree about suburbs or global warming.
Since my opinions have been called into question, I'll summarize them:
1) Level playing field for development, everybody carries their own cost. This would include levies on inner city redevelopment and to a greater extent on suburban development. I think this should be done regionally to prevent suburb development from moving to adjacent areas.
2) Pollution of all kinds should have an economic solution. If it's more economic to continue to emit a pollutant and then sequester or otherwise deal with an equal amount of that same pollutant, lets do that. I don't care whether that pollutant is hydrocarbons, CO2, or any other externality (polluted water, dead animals, etc) Top down UN prescriptions are not the way forward, imo.
Last edited by bizaro86; 09-17-2013 at 04:52 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Over the weekend, The Mail on Sunday posted a highly misleading article on climate change. In it, author David Rose made a number of errors, some fundamental, downplaying the reality of climate change. I, alongwithmanyothers, pointed out the numerous mistakes made, including his comparing two numbers that are not at all comparable, as well as a grossly inaccurate misquote of a climate scientist, making it seem he was saying something he really wasn’t.
On Tuesday, Sep. 17, the Mail "corrected" the article. Except not really. The headline, which had originally said “World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just HALF what we said” was changed to “World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong”.
This of course has caused some ripples among the people who keep track of climate change denial nonsense. It’s actually a rather masterful use of distraction: It has some truth in it, but doesn’t tell you the biggest thing you need to know to understand the real situation. And it’s important to note that none of the other really obvious errors in the article were changed.
But for the moment, though, this works in the favor of deniers, who claim that temperatures are dropping and the Earth is cooling. That's not the case. It's just the temporary downward swing of the ocean cycle masking the long-term upward trend of land temperatures.
These folks may call themselves skeptics, but they’re nothing of the sort.
Watch if you want real information, do not watch if you want to continue to wrap yourself in a blanket of self-deluded ignorance.
There is no better self deluded ignorance then listening to ideologs and "non-scientist" try and interpret scientific data regardless of the interpretation.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MelBridgeman For This Useful Post:
There is no better self deluded ignorance then listening to ideologs and "non-scientist" try and interpret scientific data regardless of the interpretation.
So only scientists are allowed to interpret data then?
Sure that means that we absolutely should do something about climate change. And that you should believe the Earth is warming.
Because that's what every scientist on this topic thinks.
So only scientists are allowed to interpret data then?
Sure that means that we absolutely should do something about climate change. And that you should believe the Earth is warming.
Because that's what every scientist on this topic thinks.
No - feel free - draw your own conclusions - doesn't mean I am going to listen
I believe the earth is warming - I mean calgary used to be under 2km of ice 15.000 years ago.....something melted it. Humans also have their effect to speed up the current warming.
Well not every scientist....
The Following User Says Thank You to MelBridgeman For This Useful Post:
But here’s the reality of temperature changes over the last 40 years… Actually we can say over 40 years there’s been almost no increase in temperature – very slight – in fact […] even with increased greenhouse CO2 level emissions, the Arctic ice has actually increased by 60 percent. Also that the Antarctica is also expanding… most experts believe by 2083, in 70 years, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.
Let me be clear: What he said here is complete nonsense.
So there you have it: A duly-elected Representative from West Virginia sits on the House Subcommittee for Energy and Power, and can make easily-disproven and frankly ridiculous statements like that, empowered by the kind of error-riddled articles published by the likes of The Mail, just as I warned.
I was glad to see Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) call McKinley out on his statements at the end of that video excerpt, and make a clear call for more science and scientists at hearings like this. But as long as Republicans hold a majority in the House I despair of that happening; they tend to call well-known deniers to testify at these panels, and the sitting Congresspeople on those committees are overwhelmingly anti-science.
This matters, folks. This is our future we’re talking about, and from top to bottom, people who flatly deny reality have infiltrated the system, with just enough influence to obstruct any real progress.
Last edited by troutman; 09-19-2013 at 02:38 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
I'm not on a crusade for no suburbs, I'm on a crusade for suburbs that pay for themselves.
