• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Dissent on Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
#61
jimfist said:
Well, you can yell into your echo chamber, and I'll yell into mine, then.

Personally, it is typical of modern "liberal" movements to attack and control things that are "controllable", such as law abiding citizens (via even more restrictive laws) and business (via the EPA, OSHA, etc.), while ignoring the things that are obvious and immediate threats to society (do crazy a**holes who want to kill with guns obey gun laws?...while the law-abiding citizen willingly disarms himself - and cannot defend himself - for fear of being fined or imprisoned for violating a new, restrictive gun law).

So, if I live in Malaysia or Japan, or California, I care about earthquakes and tsunamis, which are real threats to existence and economy. However, these entities are not controllable or accountable to any legislation, and unable to be swayed or prosecuted by any human enforcement agency. Or how about a large meteor hitting the planet? That would make global "climate change" seem like a minor issue, wouldn't it? Thus, you don't hear much talk about them because, oh well, how do you build a political coalition based on something you can't control?

IMHO, the political motive is inextricable from the "climate change" movement, and thus must be scientifically proven with a TRUE respect for science. In the 1970s, a famous Paul Ehrlich was going around scaring the crap out of school kids with predictions of global cooling and worldwide famine and food shortages, and with the full, unfettered support of "science teachers" plugged into the newly Federal Government-driven public school systems....ahem...still waiting for the apology on that one.

...but whatever...I just had some time to kill and figured what better way then to piss off the kool-aid drinkers...LOL

:hiding:
Click to expand...

So you're arguing a scientific debate because of political reasons?

As has already been pointed out - Fluid dynamics doesn't really care who you voted for.
 
#62
No, I'm arguing that there is a significant POWER and FINANCIAL (thus political) interest attached to the climate change movement...in the name of saving "the children". When the alarmists start admitting that currently there are huge flaws in their "science" of global "climate change", then I'll start taking them a bit seriously. The first step in progress is recognition of the faults, and then addressing the faults. Without it, this discussion is nothing more than a sh!tslinging contest, right?
 
#63
jimfist said:
No, I'm arguing that there is a significant POWER and FINANCIAL (thus political) interest attached to the climate change movement...in the name of saving "the children". When the alarmists start admitting that currently there are huge flaws in their "science" of global "climate change", then I'll start taking them a bit seriously. The first step in progress is recognition of the faults, and then addressing the faults. Without it, this discussion is nothing more than a sh!tslinging contest, right?
Click to expand...

What proof do you have of faults, considering no one with credible knowledge does.

There is more money against it, which is why it left the scientific sphere to be argued against by people who know nothing of which they speak.
 
#64
jimfist said:
No, I'm arguing that there is a significant POWER and FINANCIAL (thus political) interest attached to the climate change movement...in the name of saving "the children". When the alarmists start admitting that currently there are huge flaws in their "science" of global "climate change", then I'll start taking them a bit seriously. The first step in progress is recognition of the faults, and then addressing the faults. Without it, this discussion is nothing more than a sh!tslinging contest, right?
Click to expand...

"When the people who I disagree with admit they're wrong I'll start to accept their science."
 
#65
jimfist said:
We don't hear much about what MIT Professor Richard Lindzen has recently said about the topic. Many of the "alarmists" would just prefer this guy quietly pass along to the afterlife so they no longer have to endure his support of SCIENCE and reasoned logic anymore.

Richard Lindzen....look him up, sheeple.
Click to expand...

I have a better idea. If you think you have something, post a link to it. When you Google his name, the first link is Wikipedia (crap).

Here are two links:

Link Removed

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400

I've had my fill of these debates. Good luck with the scientists who also play bass. You're going to need it.
 
#66
/steps on soapbox/


This all started back in the '70's with "global cooling".....we're all going to freeze". The coming of the next ice age. Then they figured out that wasn't going to happen so they changed it to "global warming"..."we're all going to cook". Well, that hasn't happened either, so now we have "climate change".....things are going to change....well, duh.:rollno:


That is not to say we're free to abuse the earth however we want....far from it. No doubt modern society conntributes to pollution, and that is a bad thing ijdeed, but for some folks to think us humans have the capability to destroy our planet, and are doing just that, is fantasy. Our planet will turn out just fine...we've only the ability to destroy ourselves.

So, all the global warming, "save the planet" mantra, on the face of it is bunk. It's just a made up thing by a select few who stand to get richer and more powerful, either by politically dictating how they live, or getting more federal reserve notes in some fantasy market such as "carbon credits". Truth is, a whole lot of us already love our earth and don't need some elite piece of crap telling us how to handle her.

This coming from someone who can't stand plastic, can't stand people throwing trash around, and can't stand plastic. You know those plastic wrappers you get your goodies in?....those things will be around trashing up the place for a thousand years after you're dead and gone, just so you could get your little bit of instant gratification one time....for shame.

Our grandparents and great-grandparents recycled more and were more eco-minded than this generation or the one before it could ever hope to be. Partly because they knew their sustaenance came from the earth, partly because it wasn't economically feasable to be wasteful and consume, consume, consume, and partly because there was no such thing as plastic.


You'll find that the vast majority of environmental damage comes from either profiteers, or slugs in the form of human beings who have no appreciation of where the ability for them to indulge in their sluggishness comes from.

You're not going to save some concrete heat island by separating your soda bottles away from your pizza boxes and you're not going to save the planet by making windmills and electric cars that use more resources to create than the'll ever save.

Anybody got a real, actual, idea to live with the earth instead of on it, let me know....I've yet to see one, despite all the vitriol on all sides of this deal.






/steps off of soapbox, puts on helmet./
 
#68
If we could somehow rank the amount of concern, the amount of hours expended, the number of papers written and conclusions drawn by the scientific community, on a scale of 1 to 100...and then we said global warming was at 100...global cooling was probably in the single digits, heck, maybe only to the right of the decimal point.

And yet global cooling gets trotted out by some in every GW thread here as if it scientists treated it the same way. Oy.
 
#69
GregC said:
If we could somehow rank the amount of concern, the amount of hours expended, the number of papers written and conclusions drawn by the scientific community, on a scale of 1 to 100...and then we said global warming was at 100...global cooling was probably in the single digits, heck, maybe only to the right of the decimal point.

And yet global cooling gets trotted out by some in every GW thread here as if it scientists treated it the same way. Oy.
Click to expand...

"Teach the controversy."
 
#71
jimfist said:
great. Global climate change science has been proven to be flawless! Great! Glad to see we've gotten that all straightened out. My bad.
Click to expand...
It's overwhelmingly (as is the subject of this thread) accepted by nearly every scientist and moreso by those that actually count. Every talking point you've been exposed to on AM radio is something the experts in the field are clearly aware of and have debunked.

As an armchair scientist you have no real understanding of the process they've used to achieve their results, and yet you assume they must be idiots. This type of arrogance is offensive to anyone who bares even a casual resemblance to an intellectual.
 
#75
Unrepresented said:
I am of the opinion that any post with the words "global cooling" should be automatically deleted for the sanity of the TB membership.
Click to expand...

35 years ago, any post with "global cooling" in it (assuming there was an internet then, which there wasn't) would've been given the same amount of "undeniable scientific fact/we know what's going on and you're stupid if you don't believe us) as "global warming", or the more nebulous, all-inclusive "climate change" does now...and?...
 
#76
jimfist said:
poor me. Please do save me from myself. While you're at it, please do list your credentials as a scientist. You know you've been dying to....
Click to expand...


I have only a college degree, but I trust the overwhelming percentage of scientists to have a better grasp on the subject than broadcast pundits.
will33 said:
35 years ago, any post with "global cooling" in it (assuming there was an internet then, which there wasn't) would've been given the same amount of "undeniable scientific fact/we know what's going on and you're stupid if you don't believe us) as "global warming", or the more nebulous, all-inclusive "climate change" does now...and?...
Click to expand...
This it's false.
 
#77
will33 said:
35 years ago, any post with "global cooling" in it (assuming there was an internet then, which there wasn't) would've been given the same amount of "undeniable scientific fact/we know what's going on and you're stupid if you don't believe us) as "global warming", or the more nebulous, all-inclusive "climate change" does now...and?...
Click to expand...

Appeal to ridicule FTW
 
#79
So, I trust a world renowned climate professor from MIT.

Link Removed

He and I will now go into our respective corners and suck on our thumbs while all of you "non-arm chair scientists with college degrees" save us from our own stupidity. Thank you, btw. Honestly.

Now, don't we all feel better?
 
#80
jimfist said:
So, I trust a world renowned climate professor from MIT.

Link Removed

He and I will now go into our respective corners and suck on our thumbs while all of you "non-arm chair scientists with college degrees" save us from our own stupidity. Thank you, btw. Honestly.

Now, don't we all feel better?
Click to expand...

If you had a several thousand doctors tell you that you needed surgery, but one said you were fine, would you get surgery?

(Which article of his are you talking about?)

No one here is claiming to know the answer based on anything they have done; rather we are trusting those most qualified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back