Climategate II?

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#2
The Ancient Alien "experts" on the History Channel have proven to be more credible than the Climate Change "experts"
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,773
18,521
513
Kingdom of Charis
#3
Here's the one question I keep coming back to in this climate debate:

If a tobacco company executive showed you a study that proved that cigarettes don't cause cancer, you would immediately dismiss him, and rightfully so. After all, his entire livelihood is dependent upon people smoking, so naturally he would try to prove they didn't cause cancer as opposed to just studying it impartially.

Then why the fuck does everyone just believe people like Al Gore, who makes BILLIONS off of the green movement, or Climate Scientists who receive millions in research grants, donations, etc. to study the effects of man-made global warming? Both of those parties are just as inclined to prove their side of things as opposed to conducting purely empirical studies as tobacco executives are.

That's all. I'm not even debating this particular issue, or the issue of global warming in general. I just want to know why every scientist who comes out against man-made global warming is labelled "a skeptic" or somehow made to look like he's biased, but all those who support it are just "scientists" or "kindhearted altruists" like Al Gore, even though they have more at stake than the so-called skeptics.
 

JonBenetRamsey

well shit the bed
Aug 30, 2005
17,415
8,782
628
woodland critter christmas park nj
#5
Here's the one question I keep coming back to in this climate debate:

If a tobacco company executive showed you a study that proved that cigarettes don't cause cancer, you would immediately dismiss him, and rightfully so. After all, his entire livelihood is dependent upon people smoking, so naturally he would try to prove they didn't cause cancer as opposed to just studying it impartially.

Then why the fuck does everyone just believe people like Al Gore, who makes BILLIONS off of the green movement, or Climate Scientists who receive millions in research grants, donations, etc. to study the effects of man-made global warming? Both of those parties are just as inclined to prove their side of things as opposed to conducting purely empirical studies as tobacco executives are.

That's all. I'm not even debating this particular issue, or the issue of global warming in general. I just want to know why every scientist who comes out against man-made global warming is labelled "a skeptic" or somehow made to look like he's biased, but all those who support it are just "scientists" or "kindhearted altruists" like Al Gore, even though they have more at stake than the so-called skeptics.
because people want to feel like super heroes when they throw their cans in the recycling bin instead of the garbage can.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#6
Here's the one question I keep coming back to in this climate debate:

If a tobacco company executive showed you a study that proved that cigarettes don't cause cancer, you would immediately dismiss him, and rightfully so. After all, his entire livelihood is dependent upon people smoking, so naturally he would try to prove they didn't cause cancer as opposed to just studying it impartially.

Then why the fuck does everyone just believe people like Al Gore, who makes BILLIONS off of the green movement, or Climate Scientists who receive millions in research grants, donations, etc. to study the effects of man-made global warming? Both of those parties are just as inclined to prove their side of things as opposed to conducting purely empirical studies as tobacco executives are.

That's all. I'm not even debating this particular issue, or the issue of global warming in general. I just want to know why every scientist who comes out against man-made global warming is labelled "a skeptic" or somehow made to look like he's biased, but all those who support it are just "scientists" or "kindhearted altruists" like Al Gore, even though they have more at stake than the so-called skeptics.
I prefer the view of the "Cool It" guy (Bjorn Lomborg I think): Let's assume that it is real, and that we caused it, and that we can fix it, now what is the BEST way to actually combat it? The answer isn't a bunch of feel good shit like CFL bulbs and inefficient windmills. There are real, cheap things that we can do that will not completely destroy our economy.

[video=youtube;eZR3gsY98VU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eZR3gsY98VU[/video]
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,773
18,521
513
Kingdom of Charis
#7
I prefer the view of the "Cool It" guy (Bjorn Lomborg I think): Let's assume that it is real, and that we caused it, and that we can fix it, now what is the BEST way to actually combat it? The answer isn't a bunch of feel good shit like CFL bulbs and inefficient windmills. There are real, cheap things that we can do that will not completely destroy our economy.

[video=youtube;eZR3gsY98VU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eZR3gsY98VU[/video]
On top of that, and I've said this before too - I like a lot of what the green movement does. Reusing old shit instead of just throwing it away, and protecting natural habitats and animal life is all good. It's too bad you can't support that without automatically supporting 35 other things that are stupid, naive, and counterproductive. I think by being such an umbrella term for everything pro environment, the green movement alienates many potential supporters, myself included.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,343
21,952
398
Northern California
#8
The major problem I have is the money thrown at something that is so controversial. Even if that money had to be spent on environmental causes, it would be better spent on protecting our freshwater supply and working on desalination technology, because that's something we'll definitely need if our population continues to grow exponentially.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#9
On top of that, and I've said this before too - I like a lot of what the green movement does. Reusing old shit instead of just throwing it away, and protecting natural habitats and animal life is all good. It's too bad you can't support that without automatically supporting 35 other things that are stupid, naive, and counterproductive. I think by being such an umbrella term for everything pro environment, the green movement alienates many potential supporters, myself included.
You mean like environmentalists opposing highspeed rail projects that would reduce the use of fossil fuels, because it kills some trees or whatever? Yeah, these groups like to let "perfect" be the enemy of "good".
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#10
Yup.

Like Neon said, I'm all for clean drinking water, preserving natural habitats (within reason: I'm okay with drilling ANWAR), not producing ridiculous amounts of trash, and generally living within our means, ecologically. I frame it that way in my own mind: living within my means, both financially and ecologically.

But we can "fix" global warming with less than $100M initial costs and less than $100M per year ongoing costs, within a year. It's not a secret. The Freakonomics guys talk about it. We've seen what happens when a volcano erupts and puts a shitload of sulfur dioxide in the air. Pump a volcano's worth of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere once every decade or so and we're good. There's a slight increase in acid rain, yes, but negligible since it's so far in the atmosphere.

Ta da!

That doesn't mean we don't look for alternative fuel sources or we don't try to conserve what we have, but the fucking truth is that alternative fuel sources for vehicles in particular just aren't fucking ready.

Shit, I drive a fucking Prius. And yes, I know it's shittier for the environment (depending on how you balance nickel pools vs carbon emissions) than a bigger car, but I've driven ~80k miles with the damn thing in the last 2.5 years. The best current electric alternative, assuming a 100 mile range on an 8 hour charge, means I'd have been charging an electric car for 267 days!!!! And while a lot of my driving is local, I've also driven out to Michigan, Virginia, Toronto, Montreal, Boston, NYC, etc., etc. with my car. An electric car for all that just isn't a realistic alternative. I'd be spending months more on the road than I already do.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#11
If these people really believed this rather than pushing nonsense on those who are weak minded, they would be stressing that we would be saving money by using less energy and thus have more discretionary spending, but instead they are only interested in enriching themselves and have to resort to selling junk science as fact.
 

Mikefrombx

Registered User
Jan 13, 2011
953
59
153
Bronx
#12
You guys have got to be kidding me if you don't believe that we are fucking up the environment on a global scale. The rate of human population growth and need for resources alone demonstrates a tremendous issue, then in order to try to remove the carrying capacity of a particular region we build city with massive infrastructure. All that waste and pollution goes somewhere. There are huge areas of the Pacific that are so polluted with plastic that sea life is unable to survive on those regions even though the plastic floats at or near the surface. Then with all the drilling in the gulf of Mexico there is a large area that the water does not contain enough oxygen to support any life. Add to that the bleaching of the coral reefs and you can see we are fucking up our oceans.
If all that goes into the water what do you think goes into the air. Especially since the moisture in the atmosphere is sucked up from the oceans.
All of this shit has a giant impact and the. We have more than 7 billion people on the planet and growing, how can we not be fucking the planet.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,773
18,521
513
Kingdom of Charis
#13
You guys have got to be kidding me if you don't believe that we are fucking up the environment on a global scale. The rate of human population growth and need for resources alone demonstrates a tremendous issue, then in order to try to remove the carrying capacity of a particular region we build city with massive infrastructure. All that waste and pollution goes somewhere. There are huge areas of the Pacific that are so polluted with plastic that sea life is unable to survive on those regions even though the plastic floats at or near the surface. Then with all the drilling in the gulf of Mexico there is a large area that the water does not contain enough oxygen to support any life. Add to that the bleaching of the coral reefs and you can see we are fucking up our oceans.
If all that goes into the water what do you think goes into the air. Especially since the moisture in the atmosphere is sucked up from the oceans.
All of this shit has a giant impact and the. We have more than 7 billion people on the planet and growing, how can we not be fucking the planet.
Did you even read our posts? This was never about whether or not we were fucking up the planet (which we aren't, really. We're only fucking it up for ourselves. There's plenty of planets with no life on them that do just fine, thank you very much. :icon_cool). This was about whether or not we were causing the planet to get hotter. In fact, I think all of the things you mention should be dealt with, but I can't support that, because it goes hand in hand with saying that people cause global warming, which I think is not true.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#14
You guys have got to be kidding me if you don't believe that we are fucking up the environment on a global scale. The rate of human population growth and need for resources alone demonstrates a tremendous issue, then in order to try to remove the carrying capacity of a particular region we build city with massive infrastructure. All that waste and pollution goes somewhere. There are huge areas of the Pacific that are so polluted with plastic that sea life is unable to survive on those regions even though the plastic floats at or near the surface. Then with all the drilling in the gulf of Mexico there is a large area that the water does not contain enough oxygen to support any life. Add to that the bleaching of the coral reefs and you can see we are fucking up our oceans.
If all that goes into the water what do you think goes into the air. Especially since the moisture in the atmosphere is sucked up from the oceans.
All of this shit has a giant impact and the. We have more than 7 billion people on the planet and growing, how can we not be fucking the planet.


Did you read what VMS wrote?

Pollution and what has come to be known as global warming/climate change are two different things

There are more trees in North American than when Columbus came here

Do you know how filthy cities used to be before there were cars? I'll give you a hint, there was horse shit everywhere imagine the bugs and disease

Scaring people into thinking the world is going to end is the only way these people can make money now, I'm just pissed that I never figured out a way to get a cut of it.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Jan 30, 2005
13,849
638
628
Flea Bottom
#16
You guys have got to be kidding me if you don't believe that we are fucking up the environment on a global scale.
Then I guess you're just as much of a fucking asshole for not believing in god.

The rate of human population growth and need for resources alone demonstrates a tremendous issue
Yeah one that doesn't fucking apply.

then in order to try to remove the carrying capacity of a particular region we build city with massive infrastructure.
This is the ultimate goal of it all you faggot?

All that waste and pollution goes somewhere.
Tough shit, fruitypants.

There are huge areas of the Pacific that are so polluted with plastic that sea life is unable to survive on those regions even though the plastic floats at or near the surface.
You'll need to do better than "sea life".
Then with all the drilling in the gulf of Mexico there is a large area that the water does not contain enough oxygen to support any life.
So just don't go into that water you fucking fruitcakey fucking faggotassed fucking faggot. Does anyone expect to live in the middle of glaciers? Fucking faggot.

Add to that the bleaching of the coral reefs and you can see we are fucking up our oceans.
They're not "our" oceans. 18,000 years ago Florida was 3x bigger because of a difference in sea levels.

18,000 years is nothing. Faggot.
We have more than 7 billion people on the planet and growing, how can we not be fucking the planet.
A person takes up 0.5 m^3. There's plenty of space for 1,000; 1,000,000; 1,000,000,000 times more people on this earth. Because most of them are not:

FAGGOTS.

You're the problem. You're the thing in this genepool that needs to hit the bricks immediately.
 

Mikefrombx

Registered User
Jan 13, 2011
953
59
153
Bronx
#18
Oh boy we've got a new dummy to beat up on!
When you fuck up the oceans you fuck up the atmosphere. When you Fuck up the atmosphere you have climate change. Is that really that hard to draw the line between those? And how are we fucking up the oceans with pollution from waste and garbage as well as chemicals from drilling.

And by the way you dummies go on trusting the oil and gas companies that say that fracking is safe and climate change alternative energy is bullshit. Then hear from a friend in Texas that can set her water on fire out of a faucet, she has neighbors that the water smells and can take paint off walls and desolve plastic all right out of the faucet.

Anyone trying to disprove that humans have a negative effect on the environment are pushing an agenda that is very similar to that of big oil.

Did you guys not read the article bout the climate skeptic that funded and researched his own study studying something like 300000 data points to determine that climate change is occuring aand it is in fact global warming?
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#19
Holy shit, did mills just hand someone their ass on a platter and make it look somewhat intelligent?!

 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Jan 30, 2005
13,849
638
628
Flea Bottom
#20
Not exactly, you just agreed with it for once (you weren't stupid this one time).
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#21
When you fuck up the oceans you fuck up the atmosphere. When you Fuck up the atmosphere you have climate change. Is that really that hard to draw the line between those? And how are we fucking up the oceans with pollution from waste and garbage as well as chemicals from drilling.

And by the way you dummies go on trusting the oil and gas companies that say that fracking is safe and climate change alternative energy is bullshit. Then here from a friend in Texas that can set her water on fore out of a faucet, she has neighbors that the water smells and can take paint off walls and desolve plastic all right out of the faucet.
Anyone trying to disprove that humans have a neglible effect on the environment are pushing an agenda.
Did you guys not read the article bout the climate skeptic that funded and researched his own study studying something like 300000 data points to determine that climate change is occuring aand it is in fact global warming?
Hey, retard, I'm an avid SCUBA diver who happens to also own an oil and gas company. Fraccing is safe. Companies that don't adhere to EPA regulations in regards to drilling and fraccing are the problem.

I'm sure you'd know all about this seeing as how you see so much of it first hand from your vantage point in The Bronx, though. Have you ever even seen the ocean from anything but a bridge in NY?
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#22
Hell, do you even know what fraccing is? Most people who're retarded and pissed off about the issue have no clue.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,826
5,172
763
Wilmington, NC
#23
I agree with Mike. Fraccing is just dumb. And our reliance on atmosphere gutting coal and oil is what will ultimately do this planet in sooner, rather than later.

Way to go Mike! :yclap:
 

Mikefrombx

Registered User
Jan 13, 2011
953
59
153
Bronx
#25
Hell, do you even know what fraccing is? Most people who're retarded and pissed off about the issue have no clue.
Fracking is when a company will force heavy material down a well to fracture the shale that releases both shale oil and natural gas ( which is a petroleum based product) . The newly released gas and shale oil is able to be collected. Now everyone is pissed off because no one knows what is being put into the well. When the run off is tested after the fact there are many chemicals that are known carcinagens or material that is toxic. The explanations that these companies are giving for using these heavy liquids is for the purpose of lube and the ability to be sent down with high pressure.

Many of the "retarded " people are peerfectly justified without knowing the whole process if the end result is still a fucked up environment. And you geniuses that are claiming climate change believers to be retards are buying the shit from big corporations who have repeatedly shown that they do not give a fuck about anything but the bottom line.
If you don't believe in the negative effect of people on the environment come to the Superfund sites in the south Bronx, Staten island, or anywhere that has been polluted to shit.
And to restate if it gets into the water it gets into the air. If it gets into the air we are fucked.
And about my previous post to give clarification oxygenated salt water has a different density than deoxygenated salt water. Fresh water also has a different density than salt water, when you add fresh water or remove oxygen you fuck up ocean currents that destroy climate patterns leading to climate change