winsor 191
brenthutch 390
For those who would say "old news, nothing to see hear" The new stuff is:
1) Actively subverting FOIA intent
2) Admitting a) Hockey stick flawed & Steve is right, b) hide decline was dishonest, c) climate models are pretty bad, and d) cherry picking results like Japan hurricanes to emphasize a pre-ordained message
3) Trying to manipulate (and probably succeeding) who gets to be IPCC author
4) Trying to manage the message (PR concern)
5) Viewing science results as helping or hurting “the cause” — Mann especially
Is this how the "gold standard" of "peer reviewed" science manifests itself? Bill, Kallend is this what you were referring to?
1) Actively subverting FOIA intent
2) Admitting a) Hockey stick flawed & Steve is right, b) hide decline was dishonest, c) climate models are pretty bad, and d) cherry picking results like Japan hurricanes to emphasize a pre-ordained message
3) Trying to manipulate (and probably succeeding) who gets to be IPCC author
4) Trying to manage the message (PR concern)
5) Viewing science results as helping or hurting “the cause” — Mann especially
Is this how the "gold standard" of "peer reviewed" science manifests itself? Bill, Kallend is this what you were referring to?
Marinus 0
Humans are just intelligent lemmings. Even if the scientists got it all wrong with the global warming thingy, which is a long shot, there are other problems. We're running out of oil for instance. And out of phosphate. and out of room, and out of loads of other things.
I don't have kids and I don't intend to have them. I don't really care what happens to your kids and grand-kids, so go ahead, and ignore the fact that we as a species are fucked if we keep on going at it as we do right now.
I don't have kids and I don't intend to have them. I don't really care what happens to your kids and grand-kids, so go ahead, and ignore the fact that we as a species are fucked if we keep on going at it as we do right now.
skinnay 0
Quote
The science is settled.
Like I said
We will do our damnest to try and keep the next gereration from being fucked over by the alarmist wackos
Those who beleive this are among those wackos
Yes, protect your children from the 97% of climate expert wackos who believe this alarmist nonsense. Don't worry that most of the civilized world would laugh at you. Protect them with your american conservative backyard bible science and make sure we run out of petrol as fast as possible. Who gives a flying fuck about any of this "clean air" nonsense anyway? GO USA!!
dks13827 3
"We're running out of oil for instance. And out of phosphate. and out of room, and out of etc etc "
They have been saying that for centuries.
( Does not mean that I want everyone to have 8 children. )
They have been saying that for centuries.
( Does not mean that I want everyone to have 8 children. )
brenthutch 390
"We're running out of oil for instance"
Been hearing that one since the early 70s. With shale oil, tar sands and fracking just now coming on line, fossil fuel will be around for a long time to come.
Been hearing that one since the early 70s. With shale oil, tar sands and fracking just now coming on line, fossil fuel will be around for a long time to come.
Marinus 0
QuoteThey have been saying that for centuries.
Nope, they didn't
Malthus said the obvious, namely that we're running out of room 200 years ago or so. That we're running out of everything else is a rather new observation. But by all means, stick your head in the sand, I really don't care because I'll be dead when it happens. But maybe Jesus will save you kiddies.
billvon 2,476
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Been hearing that one since the early 70s.
1950's actually. Hubbert predicted that oil production in the US would peak in 1970. It peaked in 1973 and has been declining ever since.
So yes, good example.
1950's actually. Hubbert predicted that oil production in the US would peak in 1970. It peaked in 1973 and has been declining ever since.
So yes, good example.
Marinus 0
QuoteBeen hearing that one since the early 70s. With shale oil, tar sands and fracking just now coming on line, fossil fuel will be around for a long time to come.
Yeah we got decades, maybe even centuries left, that's a long time for some people. Others look at the big picture, and realize that 200 years is next to nothing.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuote
The science is settled.
Like I said
We will do our damnest to try and keep the next gereration from being fucked over by the alarmist wackos
Those who beleive this are among those wackos
Yes, protect your children from the 97% of climate expert wackos who believe this alarmist nonsense. Don't worry that most of the civilized world would laugh at you. Protect them with your american conservative backyard bible science and make sure we run out of petrol as fast as possible. Who gives a flying fuck about any of this "clean air" nonsense anyway? GO USA!!
Of course
I have previously stated that I am working for polluted enough air and water to doom my children and grandchildren to oozing open sores and cancer filled lungs.
Us deniers are such evil bastards aint we
(now, want to take your joke of a post to the next level?)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
brenthutch 390
I wasn't around in the 50s, so I will take your word for it.
I don't recall saying anything about US production. Nice canard though.
I don't recall saying anything about US production. Nice canard though.
kallend 1,681
QuoteI wasn't around in the 50s, so I will take your word for it.
I don't recall saying anything about US production. Nice canard though.
www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production
www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=A
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,476
>I wasn't around in the 50s, so I will take your word for it.
Actually, some of us have discovered we can learn about things by reading, rather than actually being at the event. For example, I learned a lot about the Civil War by reading about it, even though I wasn't there. I highly recommend such approaches, although I know many conservatives dislike them.
Actually, some of us have discovered we can learn about things by reading, rather than actually being at the event. For example, I learned a lot about the Civil War by reading about it, even though I wasn't there. I highly recommend such approaches, although I know many conservatives dislike them.
brenthutch 390
Again where did I say anything about U.S. production
rushmc 18
Quote>I wasn't around in the 50s, so I will take your word for it.
Actually, some of us have discovered we can learn about things by reading, rather than actually being at the event. For example, I learned a lot about the Civil War by reading about it, even though I wasn't there. I highly recommend such approaches, although I know many conservatives dislike them.
Sure, you can read and learn
Does not mean the conclusions one draws are worth a damn.
Man made climate change arguments and running out of oil are good examples of bad conclusions
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Marinus 0
QuoteMan made climate change arguments and running out of oil are good examples of bad conclusions
So you're claiming with a straight face that we aren't running out of oil?
brenthutch 390
Lets get back to the original thread. Does anyone still think that the IPCC and its "peer reviewed" science, is the Gold Standard that some on this forum claimed it to be?
winsor 191
QuoteLets get back to the original thread. Does anyone still think that the IPCC and its "peer reviewed" science, is the Gold Standard that some on this forum claimed it to be?
It is science every bit as sound as you can find in any Superman comic book.
Like I said
We will do our damnest to try and keep the next gereration from being fucked over by the alarmist wackos
Those who beleive this are among those wackos
I wouldn't worry about it - in particular.
The next generation is unavoidably fucked in so many ways that the comic-book science syncophants only add to the mix.
We have overspent enough to absorb a generation's output - if that generation was productive as hell - and we are increasing our debt burden at an exponential pace.
We are importing over 75% of the petroleum we require to get through the day (as well as everything else), and we are poised to improve our production very, very soon. Solyndra should pick up most of the slack.
We have been paying the indigent to breed for half a century (it's hard to measure by "generations" since, like tribbles, they appear to be born pregnant), and it is politically incorrect to suggest there is something wrong with that.
"You hate the poor!"
Uh, no, but think poverty would not be as much of an issue if poor people avoided having babies - starting with the "Great Society." Sam Kinneson pointed out the futility of "aid" to famine struck areas, and the principle of people without food expecting things to somehow spontaneously improve if they can only have enough children is a losing bet. As Rocket J. Squirrel said, "that trick never works!"
BSBD,
Winsor