Bill Nye the Science Guy: Climate change deniers are ‘unpatriotic’
- Thread starter HELLRAISER
- Start date
-
- Tags
- abysmal liberal whining another enligtening topic anti-science hellraisin anti-science neocons bill nye the science guy fuck neocons hedonis battles evil helldoucher rambling neocons hate america satanic conspiracy science falsely so called unpatriotic neocons whims=commie vote 4 pk ~~whimsy~~ 4 president
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Support for Global Warming is selective science as well. For the most part, Global Warming has been blamed on the amount of CO2 emissions that have been supplied to the atmosphere, mainly by humans. But, the direct causes of that CO2 is being completely misrepresented, because supporters for Global Warming are using the same exact selective science that you are claiming the deniers to be using.
Supporters usually blame CO2 emissions on things like cars, factories and the burning of oil based products. I've said this in about a hundred different Global Warming threads on this forum, but why don't the supporters list other, realistic contributors to the rise in CO2 emissions? And, just so I don't have to sit here and type it all out again, I'm just going to quote myself from the Little Time To Curb Global Warming Thread...
If a psychologist did a bunch of research on mental disorders and proved that most of, if not all medically diagnosed mental disorders were nothing more than a bunch of...that psychologist would never be able to find work again in that field again. Why? Because they would've outted every other psychologist in the world and proven all of their so-called research and diagnoses to be falsified and they, themselves, to be a complete scam.
Yes, a climatologist's job is to study weather, but in order to keep their job, they must do what they're told by their higher powers. AKA - whoever writes their paychecks (big corporations, NASA, politicians, etc).
THe difference between faith and the science of climate change is that one is a belief in an imaginary friend and the other is a scientific theory based on data and research.
The belief that climate change is undermining the capitalist system is a conspiracy theory that ignores the fact that NeoCons themselves are responsible for the economic havoc they have been wreaking on this country and against the middle class for the past 30 years.
@ Chef
That's not how scientific research in this area is carried out at all. In the case of temperature the main areas of research are performed on the main indicators of temperature variance throughout the ages. Tree rings, ice cores, historical records etc are all areas of study in which data has been produced. It is only then when the data can be reviewed are assumptions based upon it made.
Take the so called 'hockey stick' graph for example:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg18925431.400/mg18925431.400-2_752.jpg
A graph that depicts the data extracted from several different sources and teams (second graph) around the world that all indicate a level of planetary warming. There's an obvious correlation there.
Now do you really think everyone involved (several different teams of climatologists from around the world) in this research decided beforehand that no matter what that graph was going to show that the planet was getting warmer and this was in fact due to man? If you do, you fundamentally lack knowledge about how scientific research is conducted. Yes some of them may have had assumptions or opinions on the matter, but it is the data that speaks for itself, not the scientists involved. In this case the data clearly shows that there has been a massive spike since the time of the industrial revolution.
Simple fact is, the rise in population in general is a huge issue when it comes to a change in climate. Your body temperature theory while plausible would in my opinion only be a minuscule part of a wider issue - hence the lack of research into it (these people know their stuff and what they choose to look into and research are done for a reason). The level of energy and resources to keep these people far outweighs any damage their collective body heats do.
You seem to have answered your own question here. We have more appliances, which means we need more electricity, more fuel needs to be burnt in order to keep these appliances running, more pollutants being pumped out into the atmosphere......
Really? There's no money in being on the "other side" of this issue? Seems strange that the large energy producers would be putting so much into lobbying this issue then isn't it.....
It's simple? A rise in CO2 (which has been named as the main cause of climate change which is why it gets the majority of attention - along with other minor causes, such as water vapour and methane etc), rise in temperature, shift the climate. This is what high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere do. 11 out of the past 12 years have been the warmest on record. Sea levels rising, etc, etc.
I dunno Chef, you seem to have you mind already made up for you.
Was this psychologists research published in a peer reviewed journal?
If not he can makes as many crack pot claims as he likes, it doesn't mean they mean anything in the overall general psychological community.
[Not really in the typing mood this evening so if some of this doesn't make sense or lacks depth, apologies.]
That's not how scientific research in this area is carried out at all. In the case of temperature the main areas of research are performed on the main indicators of temperature variance throughout the ages. Tree rings, ice cores, historical records etc are all areas of study in which data has been produced. It is only then when the data can be reviewed are assumptions based upon it made.
Take the so called 'hockey stick' graph for example:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg18925431.400/mg18925431.400-2_752.jpg
A graph that depicts the data extracted from several different sources and teams (second graph) around the world that all indicate a level of planetary warming. There's an obvious correlation there.
Now do you really think everyone involved (several different teams of climatologists from around the world) in this research decided beforehand that no matter what that graph was going to show that the planet was getting warmer and this was in fact due to man? If you do, you fundamentally lack knowledge about how scientific research is conducted. Yes some of them may have had assumptions or opinions on the matter, but it is the data that speaks for itself, not the scientists involved. In this case the data clearly shows that there has been a massive spike since the time of the industrial revolution.
Simple fact is, the rise in population in general is a huge issue when it comes to a change in climate. Your body temperature theory while plausible would in my opinion only be a minuscule part of a wider issue - hence the lack of research into it (these people know their stuff and what they choose to look into and research are done for a reason). The level of energy and resources to keep these people far outweighs any damage their collective body heats do.
You seem to have answered your own question here. We have more appliances, which means we need more electricity, more fuel needs to be burnt in order to keep these appliances running, more pollutants being pumped out into the atmosphere......
Really? There's no money in being on the "other side" of this issue? Seems strange that the large energy producers would be putting so much into lobbying this issue then isn't it.....
It's simple? A rise in CO2 (which has been named as the main cause of climate change which is why it gets the majority of attention - along with other minor causes, such as water vapour and methane etc), rise in temperature, shift the climate. This is what high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere do. 11 out of the past 12 years have been the warmest on record. Sea levels rising, etc, etc.
I dunno Chef, you seem to have you mind already made up for you.
Was this psychologists research published in a peer reviewed journal?
If not he can makes as many crack pot claims as he likes, it doesn't mean they mean anything in the overall general psychological community.
[Not really in the typing mood this evening so if some of this doesn't make sense or lacks depth, apologies.]
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Not always. :tongue: Global warming is one of those.
Accepted "science" is faith in a theory, that's more than likely a lie.
:hatsoff:
If (this is a big if) god put oil there then there is an ecological reason for its existence. God did not put capitalism in the environment for us to simply discover. Capitalism discovered the use value of oil and capitalism also discovered the "dark side" to the use value of oil (it ruins our air and makes our planet warmer).
Shouldn't capitalism, if it's such a great economic model, be the leader in the solution of finding something which carries the same use value of oil but without the dark side of ruining our planet? Shouldn't capitalists be the champions in being Ecologically sound because if capitalists continue to ruin the planet there won't be any more consumers.
Capitalists can't think beyond the dollar put in front of them.
In a word, no.
Why are American climate change deniers always convinced that attempts to bring about sensible global climate policy initiatives are part of some conspiracy to alter the political landscape of the US? The green party of Denmark or Japan or South Africa really couldn't give a fuck if the pollution produced by the US was manufactured under a socialist or capitalist government.
The falures of Copenhagen were certainly triumphs for capitalism. Sadly for the West and the US in particular they were triumphs for the nations that have largely destroyed American manufacturing capability. Enabling them to continue unchecked the practices that help keep their prices down.
The facts are that overwhelmingly there is a human impact on weather patterns on this planet. Increasingly this damage is going to be made by nations other than the US, it's effects though are far reaching and difficult to gauge. To make the necessary alliances to combat these effects we will need a unifying principle, namely science. The idea that the Japanese or German academies which are of one mind regarding this issue are part of a one world global cabal is simply silly. As is the idea that the faculty at MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are also so inclined. (Three schools that arguably made more millionaires and biillionaires during the tech boom than anywhere else. And produce waves of scientists annually who work for big Pharma, big agriculture etc) There is not a credible school producing detailed peer reviewed literature supporting the deniers that has convinced one governmet that has meaningful free elections.
In short there is a mountain of evidence on the one side and some well organized lobbyists on the other wedging a crowbar into any of the cracks of doubt that are inevitable in a field of inquiry this vast.
The falures of Copenhagen were certainly triumphs for capitalism. Sadly for the West and the US in particular they were triumphs for the nations that have largely destroyed American manufacturing capability. Enabling them to continue unchecked the practices that help keep their prices down.
The facts are that overwhelmingly there is a human impact on weather patterns on this planet. Increasingly this damage is going to be made by nations other than the US, it's effects though are far reaching and difficult to gauge. To make the necessary alliances to combat these effects we will need a unifying principle, namely science. The idea that the Japanese or German academies which are of one mind regarding this issue are part of a one world global cabal is simply silly. As is the idea that the faculty at MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are also so inclined. (Three schools that arguably made more millionaires and biillionaires during the tech boom than anywhere else. And produce waves of scientists annually who work for big Pharma, big agriculture etc) There is not a credible school producing detailed peer reviewed literature supporting the deniers that has convinced one governmet that has meaningful free elections.
In short there is a mountain of evidence on the one side and some well organized lobbyists on the other wedging a crowbar into any of the cracks of doubt that are inevitable in a field of inquiry this vast.
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
I know that you are using that graph as nothing more than an example, but, as I said before, that's just one tiny piece in a gigantic puzzle. If you look at that graph and that graph alone, one would be alarmed at how much the temperature had risen. And, to note only that the graphs peak increases around the time of the industrial revolution, then you are going to think that two instances (the rise in temperature and the industrial revolution) are undoubtedly linked together, which would cause one to come the conclusion that human pollution is the only reason why the temperature has risen.
To make such a huge statement by only looking at such a small piece of the puzzle isn't science...it's assumption.
FYI - I will never ever deny that the temperature of the earth has risen over time. It would be ignorant to claim that the temperature and the climates that cover our earth have always remained the same; neither of them have, but humans have been around for much longer than the graph indicates. Where's the rest of the data? If our science can use carbon dating to measure temperature from 1,000 years ago, then why don't our scientists go back even farther and map out the history of our earths temperature since even before humans habiated this planet?
:dunno:
I completely agree with you; the body heat issue is nothing more than a minuscule part of a wider issue. But, the supporters of Global Warming focus their attention on CO2 emissions, which is also nothing more than a minuscule part of a wider issue.
Personally, I would like to see all of these scientists look at every single aspect that could even be considered a factor towards the theory of Global Warming, no matter how minuscule it may seem, and then put all of the pieces together instead of looking at one, single factor and acting as if they know, for a fact, that that one, single factor is the sole cause for the rise of the earths temperature.
But where is the research on the effect of electric currents on the earths temperature? Why does it always go back to CO2 emissions? Are we so certain that electric current doesn't raise temperatures? Because, there are plenty of products that we use today that use electric current to increase the temperature of the air around it.
I never said that there isn't money being made on the "other side" of it. But, even the same energy producers (even including automobile companies) are also making money from the PRO Global Warming crowd, as most of them are developing products and technology that can take advantage of the whole Global Warming trend. Just look at how many car companies have plastered the market with eco-friendly cars now-a-days. It wasn't that long ago when these same car companies refused to put electric cars and hybrids out on the road, because it would've hurt their profits. But, since it's now a trendy thing (and trends make money), electric cars and hybrids are being pumped out like crazy.
So, yes...money is being made on both sides, but most of it is coming from the PRO Global Warming crowd.
If it's called Global Warming, then you would expect that to mean that the entire globe is getting warmer, would you not? If that's the case, then why did the DC area and a large portion of the NE United States just get hit with one of the worst winter storms in history? Was that Global Warming that brought all of that snow?
It's just funny to me that the supporters of Global Warming refuse to look at examples of weather that go against their belief and/or even acknowledge it. And, in instances where they do acknowledge those moments, they still blame it on Global Warming.
When the temperature is hotter than normal? Global Warming.
When the temperature is colder than normal? Global Warming.
So, what if the temperature hits the average right on the head? Is it still Global Warming, even though it's completely normal? Or, is that the only instance in which Global Warming doesn't exist.
:dunno:
It seems you have your mind made up too, sooooo...where do we go from here? Is there where we unzip our pants and touch penises? Or, do we be boring and just agree to disagree? Me? I'd much rather touch peni...I mean agree to disag...you know what? Let's just touch penises.
:banana:
Skyraider22
The One and Only Big Daddy
:scream:What:scream:
JayJohn85
Banned
Ha ha ha heh ha heh ha <sides sore>
God didnt put shit there....Years and years of human bodies, and animals put oil there hence the term "Fossil" fuel....I suggest instead of calling someone a science jerk you see about learning some.
As I seem to be having a fair few technical problems tonight I won't go through the entire post, I'll just pick this out and go from there.
This is why it's called Global climate change, because yes there may be freak snow storms in the eastern part of the United States - setting aside it's still winter, this one event still doesn't take anything away from the fact that average temperatures globally are up once again.
Weather and climate are two different things. Freak weather systems in one particular place are just a by product of the wider climatological change. As I said above the fact still remains that average global temperatures are up. Whether the snow's there or not there's no getting away from this.
These snow storms change nothing.
I'd always be up for some cock on cock action with you Chef. :kiss:
Now that I think about it, I probably could have gone through you post in its entirety, but it'd probably be the similar to what I've put here. So I guess I've let you off . . . for now.
This is why it's called Global climate change, because yes there may be freak snow storms in the eastern part of the United States - setting aside it's still winter, this one event still doesn't take anything away from the fact that average temperatures globally are up once again.
Weather and climate are two different things. Freak weather systems in one particular place are just a by product of the wider climatological change. As I said above the fact still remains that average global temperatures are up. Whether the snow's there or not there's no getting away from this.
These snow storms change nothing.
I'd always be up for some cock on cock action with you Chef. :kiss:
Now that I think about it, I probably could have gone through you post in its entirety, but it'd probably be the similar to what I've put here. So I guess I've let you off . . . for now.
JayJohn85
Banned
In regards to BB's reply to ChefChiTown.....When the temperature rise really takes place it doesnt mean we are all going to have nice tropical weather lmao....Could people stop taking it so literal, In fact all the ice melting has to go somewhere.....It can drop its candy ass anywhere in the world in the form of one major shit storm of a snow storm sha mon!!!!!
Higher temperatures, will lead to - amongst other things - higher levels of water evaporation which as you know has to come down somewhere. Which could lead to the increase of freak weather systems.
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
That's all I wanted to hear. :lovecoupl
I, for one, look forward to global warming. It should cull much of the excess population.
That's what you'd call an optimist. Always see the up side of any situation.
You know I've been thinking about this and Bill Nye is wrong.
People who disagree with climate change are not un-patrirotic.
They are idiots, but that doesn't make them un-patriotic.
In fact,neither does accepting climate change mean that you are patriotic.
Patriotism means love for one's country. View on climate change is not a criteria for patriotism. The two are separate things that don't go together.
That's like saying because you disagree with the sun being yellow, you have poor sportsmanship.
People who disagree with climate change are not un-patrirotic.
They are idiots, but that doesn't make them un-patriotic.
In fact,neither does accepting climate change mean that you are patriotic.
Patriotism means love for one's country. View on climate change is not a criteria for patriotism. The two are separate things that don't go together.
That's like saying because you disagree with the sun being yellow, you have poor sportsmanship.