DC Tom Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 No because you believe hypotheses as fact where thinking people are more skeptical. Actually, just because he's noise pollution. It has nothing to do with him believing "scientists" (or being unable to distinguish "a graph on a web site" from "scientists.")
Tiberius Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 Actually, just because he's noise pollution. It has nothing to do with him believing "scientists" (or being unable to distinguish "a graph on a web site" from "scientists.") Oh "scientists"? They are not real or something? Stfu
Azalin Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 This may be an overly basic question, but if the science is settled on MMGW, why are we still spending so much time and money studying it?
Chef Jim Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 This may be an overly basic question, but if the science is settled on MMGW, why are we still spending so much time and money studying it?
Azalin Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 That's pretty much my take, too. I'm hoping to get some input from a true believer.
DC Tom Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 This may be an overly basic question, but if the science is settled on MMGW, why are we still spending so much time and money studying it? Mitigation, mostly. Refining the theory to better predict magnitude, timelines, and effects. The one thing they're not trying to do is disprove it...because that's strictly forbidden by the scientific community.
Azalin Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 The one thing they're not trying to do is disprove it...because that's strictly forbidden by the scientific community. And all this time I was under the impression that in order to prove something as scientific fact, every step imaginable should be taken to disprove a theory before even considering the possibility that it may be factual.
row_33 Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 You cannot disprove it. You cannot prove it either. You need a bunch of people to all agree to proclaim it as already proven, that seems to work.
Tiberius Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 Mitigation, mostly. Refining the theory to better predict magnitude, timelines, and effects. The one thing they're not trying to do is disprove it...because that's strictly forbidden by the scientific community. It's forbidden? How? I thought we had a free society and people could study what they wanted. Explain to us this scientific oppression going on
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) Hey once again I appreciate your help here but as I've told you before I only care about the opinions of people I respect. So you can carry on too. No no, that post wasn't for you. It was mocking your incredible lack of self-awareness and the pride you seem to take in it for the benefit of everyone else. So, as a complete moron whose posts I occasionally laugh at once said: "Carry on." Edited June 6, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker
B-Man Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 A list of 4 climate-change proposals that Glenn Reynolds says ought to come first, from the elite, to show they really believe what they want ordinary people to believe. First, we need to tax the “blue zones.” That is, we need to impose steep taxes on property in coastal areas that will be flooded by the sea-level increases that global warming is supposed to bring. By discouraging people from living or building there now, we’ll save ourselves from big problems in the future Second, we need to ban taxpayer-funded air travel to conferences. State legislatures could ban reimbursement for travel outside their states; Congress could require that no federal grant money be spent on air travel to conferences and similar events. A lot of academic conferences would fail, but that’s a small price to pay for saving the planet. Third, we need to ban private jet travel. At first I thought about just taxing it heavily, but with the planet at stake, that might not be enough Fourth, we need a luxury tax on mansions. Any home more than twice the size of the average American home should be taxed at 25% of its value per year. Celebrities and the rich enjoy great powers of persuasion — but with great power comes great responsibility, and they have a great responsibility to set a good example for the rest of us on climate change! And don't let these people buy their way out of the carbon sins, in the manner preened about by Al Gore "And what carbon emissions come from my trips... are offset. I live a carbon-free lifestyle, to the maximum extent possible."Gore's idea of what is possible is so ludicrously crabbed that I don't know why he has any hope of solving any problems at all. He's already hit the maximum by buying carbon offsets?!! Well, he's got the money. And by the way, doesn't Al Gore make money from people buying carbon offsets??
grinreaper Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2012/09/thanks_to_fracking_u_s_carbon_emissions_are_at_the_lowest_levels_in_20_years_.html This is an old article but even then we here in the U.S. had made great strides in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Natural gas is a cheap but clean alternative to other forms of energy. Electric autos sound nice but that electricity is often generated by the burning of coal. Biofuels so far haven't been the answer. That 10% ethanol blend reduces my mileage by a good 10% while simultaneously raising crop prices by reducing farmland used for food. Wind and solar power need subsidies to make them even somewhat viable.A great deal of people are up in arms over us stepping away from the Paris Agreement. That agreement was nothing but an agreement to give other countries our money so that they could follow the failed wishful policies of the Unicorn People. Instead of giving people our money we should be finding ways to deliver our abundant natural resources to them and get paid for it. The free market has worked very well here, why abandon it for some useless agreement that is nothing but a transfer of wealth? If the Paris Agreement is actually about "saving the planet" then maybe we should be encouraging the rest of the world to follow our lead since we have actually made a difference when it comes to carbon emissions.
Chef Jim Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 No no, that post wasn't for you. It was mocking your incredible lack of self-awareness and the pride you seem to take in it for the benefit of everyone else. So, as a complete moron whose posts I occasionally laugh at once said: "Carry on." So is it really necessary for the person who has proclaimed themselves "The Smartest Man in the Room" to call others morons just to feel better about themselves? You're a psychologist wet dream. "Sir TYTT is here to see you" "Booya!! That Ferrari if finally mine!!"
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 So is it really necessary for the person who has proclaimed themselves "The Smartest Man in the Room" to call others morons just to feel better about themselves? You're a psychologist wet dream. "Sir TYTT is here to see you" "Booya!! That Ferrari if finally mine!!" Good grief, you've become absolutely pathetic, and unfortunately cancerous here. A total lack of self-awareness. Great work.
Chef Jim Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 Good grief, you've become absolutely pathetic, and unfortunately cancerous here. A total lack of self-awareness. Great work. However you feel the need, for some unknown reason, to engage. I thought you were smarter than that. I guess not.
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 However you feel the need, for some unknown reason, to engage. I thought you were smarter than that. I guess not. I'll engage you because, despite your best efforts lately, I still don't have you on ignore, and you keep responding to me directly. I'm holding out hope that you'll pull your now **** encrusted head out of your ass, and stop being part of the problem; though I'm becoming less hopeful, as you seem to now be relishing your role as "!@#$ing ass-clown who makes the board a worse place, totally disregarding the community and the purpose of the community". If you'd like to have fewer interactions with me, I suggest exhibiting a modicum of self-restraint, and stop commenting to me or about me. I hope that's not too much for you.
Chef Jim Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 I'll engage you because, despite your best efforts lately, I still don't have you on ignore, and you keep responding to me directly. I'm holding out hope that you'll pull your now **** encrusted head out of your ass, and stop being part of the problem; though I'm becoming less hopeful, as you seem to now be relishing your role as "!@#$ing ass-clown who makes the board a worse place, totally disregarding the community and the purpose of the community". If you'd like to have fewer interactions with me, I suggest exhibiting a modicum of self-restraint, and stop commenting to me or about me. I hope that's not too much for you. Yeah I can do that.
Tiberius Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 I thought you were smarter than that. I guess not. I think a few people made that mistake about Tasker. But chatting with him clears up that misconception pretty quickly
grinreaper Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 I think a few people made that mistake about Tasker. But chatting with him clears up that misconception pretty quickly I can't remember if he has you on ignore or not.
Recommended Posts