Chef Jim Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 I traveled to India a lot. Every time I saw a man pissing on the side of a building, I should have thought of your attitude. Who cares? 500 million other guys doing it. What's the big deal. You don't care to make the world a better place. Got it. Sad but whatever. Some of us will still work to make things better for you. For the "smartest guy in the room" you're pretty !@#$ing daft. You want to make the world a better place? You just turned into a 15 year old girl. Did you up talk when you said that? I follow people who litter and hand them what they tossed and say "you dropped something." I'm the guy who fills buckets of water when I run the shower and use it to water my garden. We have regulated the county to hell in the name of the environment. You'll be shocked to know I'm cool with that for the most part. However even with all that the planet is still a polluted !@#$ing mess. Why? Because the likes of China, India and Russia don't give a ****. But you must be too high up your ivory tower to get that. That gator dumbassery right there.
Benjamin Franklin Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 (edited) For the "smartest guy in the room" you're pretty !@#$ing daft. You want to make the world a better place? You just turned into a 15 year old girl. Did you up talk when you said that? I follow people who litter and hand them what they tossed and say "you dropped something." I'm the guy who fills buckets of water when I run the shower and use it to water my garden. We have regulated the county to hell in the name of the environment. You'll be shocked to know I'm cool with that for the most part. However even with all that the planet is still a polluted !@#$ing mess. Why? Because the likes of China, India and Russia don't give a ****. But you must be too high up your ivory tower to get that. That gator dumbassery right there.Oh so you do care and do the right things. That's great. Seriously. You should share those sentiments and not "we're !@#$ed." It's better for everyone around you and has a bigger effect. Lifts us all up. Thanks for our post: Made my day. (It's early though.) Edited August 4, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin
/dev/null Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 Oh so you do care and do the right things. That's great. Seriously. You should share those sentiments and not "we're !@#$ed." It's better for everyone around you and has a bigger effect. Lifts us all up. Thanks for our post: Made my day. (It's early though.) I bet you have one of those I'm Part of the Solution, Not Part of the Problem bumper stickers
HappyDays Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 Every time I try to have any sort of discourse with the global warming crowd I'm met with "But there's consensus!" There's your "dialog" right there. There is a consensus. Somewhere between 90-100% of climate scientists agree that recent human activity is causing climate change. The number I see most often is 97%. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 The debate in the scientific community right now is over how bad it will be, and how much we can do lessen its effects.
Benjamin Franklin Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 (edited) I bet you have one of those I'm Part of the Solution, Not Part of the Problem bumper stickers On my hemp-composite bicycle? Just drawing our resident Wilford Brimley into the limelight. He likes it. Edited August 4, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin
4merper4mer Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 For the "smartest guy in the room" you're pretty !@#$ing daft. You want to make the world a better place? You just turned into a 15 year old girl. Did you up talk when you said that? I follow people who litter and hand them what they tossed and say "you dropped something." I'm the guy who fills buckets of water when I run the shower and use it to water my garden. We have regulated the county to hell in the name of the environment. You'll be shocked to know I'm cool with that for the most part. However even with all that the planet is still a polluted !@#$ing mess. Why? Because the likes of China, India and Russia don't give a ****. But you must be too high up your ivory tower to get that. That gator dumbassery right there. Note to self: DO NOT eat the tomatoes.....or anything else from Chef's garden. It's made with booty sweat water.
Chef Jim Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 Oh so you do care and do the right things. That's great. Seriously. You should share those sentiments and not "we're !@#$ed." It's better for everyone around you and has a bigger effect. Lifts us all up. Thanks for our post: Made my day. (It's early though.) No I'm not deluded to the point that thinking anything we do here in this country is going to change the way the world's biggest polluters operate. But you and your girlfriends continue to play the feel good bit by picking up your gum wrappers. Just be mindful of your double soy half caf cappuccino with whip in its disposable cup.
Tiberius Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 No I'm not deluded to the point that thinking anything we do here in this country is going to change the way the world's biggest polluters operate. But you and your girlfriends continue to play the feel good bit by picking up your gum wrappers. Just be mindful of your double soy half caf cappuccino with whip in its disposable cup. Hey, cap and trade on sulfer emissions made a big difference with acid rain. We can make a difference. Think globally, act locally!
Chef Jim Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 Hey, cap and trade on sulfer emissions made a big difference with acid rain. We can make a difference. Think globally, act locally! Yes and we have a lot of pull around the world. Remember we have the Cheeto In Chief running things now and the world loves us. Slogans are great. You forgot the hashtag though.
DC Tom Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 It is weird to me, how people play the "I'm the more environmentally responsible!" game. Particularly those of the global warming crowd, who seem to believe that if you don't consider CO2 the end-all and be-all of environmentalism, you must be running around dumping PCBs into fresh-water reservoirs and live in a house decorated all in whale skin and elephant ivory or something.
Magox Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 There is a consensus. Somewhere between 90-100% of climate scientists agree that recent human activity is causing climate change. The number I see most often is 97%. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 The debate in the scientific community right now is over how bad it will be, and how much we can do lessen its effects. That keeps getting passed off as fact, when in fact it is fiction. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317 https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/ Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty. More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quoted rather a lot of gray literature itself. Donna LaFramboise found 5,587 non peer reviewed articles in AR4.) Fabius Maximus deserves credit for finding and analyzing the study. He notes that only 64% agreed that man-made CO2 was the main or dominant driver controlling more than half of the temperature rise. But of this group (1,222 scientists), only 797 said it was “virtually certain” or “extremely likely”. That’s just 43% of climate scientists who fully agree with the IPCC statement. This survey directly asks climate scientists, unlike the clumsy versions by John Cook, William Anderegg, or Naomi Oreskes that do keyword surveys of abstracts in papers and try to “guess”. Fabius Maximus suggests we exclude the “I don’t knows” which brings up the number to 47%. Since these are “climate scientists” I don’t see why those responses should be excluded. An expert saying “I don’t know” on the certainty question is an emphatic disagreement with the IPCC 95% certainty. http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
Benjamin Franklin Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 (edited) No I'm not deluded to the point that thinking anything we do here in this country is going to change the way the world's biggest polluters operate. But you and your girlfriends continue to play the feel good bit by picking up your gum wrappers. Just be mindful of your double soy half caf cappuccino with whip in its disposable cup.There's the guy I know! Drove my CO2 generating dog in my gas guzzling truck to get a ribeye for dinner later. But keep up the misjudgements old man. You wouldn't be you otherwise. Edited August 4, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin
DC Tom Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 There is a consensus. Somewhere between 90-100% of climate scientists agree that recent human activity is causing climate change. The number I see most often is 97%. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 The debate in the scientific community right now is over how bad it will be, and how much we can do lessen its effects. Consensus is not a scientific principle. The moment you say "consensus," you are discussing politics, not science. THAT IS WHY YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF HAVING ANY DIALOG ABOUT THE SCIENCE.
row_33 Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 Science is built on individuals going against what 97% told them was impossible. And "the weather" isn't hard science, you can't even reasonably predict what is going to happen in 2 hours. That doesn't mean it is worthless, it has value, but it's not worthy of dogmatic statements about the future. It is weird to me, how people play the "I'm the more environmentally responsible!" game. Particularly those of the global warming crowd, who seem to believe that if you don't consider CO2 the end-all and be-all of environmentalism, you must be running around dumping PCBs into fresh-water reservoirs and live in a house decorated all in whale skin and elephant ivory or something. It's called JUKING, this crappy little game of trying to one-up everyone. At church you had people that approached me and said: Them: "How are you today" Me: "I'm in exams and tired from all the studying and writing, but okay otherwise." Them: "How dare you complain when Jesus hung on the cross for 6 hours in agony." Me: "Does your atheist brother act like this over global warming?"
Benjamin Franklin Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 Science is built on individuals going against what 97% told them was impossible. . Your general statement is stilly. Those make the movies but science is more solidly built on the work of others in iterative steps. Most of your 3% are pure crackpots.
Magox Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 Your general statement is stilly. Those make the movies but science is more solidly built on the work of others in iterative steps. Most of your 3% are pure crackpots. Except the 97% number is a contrived figure. So there is that.
row_33 Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 Your general statement is stilly. Those make the movies but science is more solidly built on the work of others in iterative steps. Most of your 3% are pure crackpots. Huh? Nothing wrong with telling you that someone not in the field of actual study of science, like a report for CNN, isn't delivering anything but conjecture that isn't necessarily accurate. There's tons of areas of important experience that aren't done in a test tube. You might fall in love someday, probably not if you act like that in real life. You might want to read a poem, again probably not... Sucks to be you...
Chef Jim Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 There's the guy I know! Drove my CO2 generating dog in my gas guzzling truck to get a ribeye for dinner later. But keep up the misjudgements old man. You wouldn't be you otherwise. Yup when you have no argument go with the "shut up old man!" route. Bravo!!
HappyDays Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 That keeps getting passed off as fact, when in fact it is fiction. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317 https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/ http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf Oh come on the Fabius Maximus BS? You really think I've never seen that before? Climate skeptics (read: scientifically illiterate people) pull from the same 5 or so sources every time. Luckily the study's own author refutes the blog post's misinterpretation of the data: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/01/rick-santorum/santorum-cites-flawed-climate-change-figure-and-mi/ Please don't just say "oh Politifact is a liberal propaganda machine." Read the article. The blog post deliberately misinterprets the study.
DC Tom Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 Your general statement is stilly. Those make the movies but science is more solidly built on the work of others in iterative steps. Most of your 3% are pure crackpots. This is true. Science does, however, progress at the boundaries where discrepancies abound, when the 3% look at those discrepancies from a new perspective from the 97% (examples: Michelson-Morley; Einstein; Feynman; Wegener; Lee, Yang, and Wu; Rubin; Hubble). The biggest scientific failing of climatology right now is that it doesn't allow any such investigation "because there's consensus!"
Recommended Posts