I love that the coalition that the Koch brothers created to refute climate change being man made has hired the same guy that the tobacco companies hired to discredit the claim that smoking causes cancer and is unhealthy. Kind of shows you the credibility and the lengths they'll go to.
Do the Climate Deniers Also Deny Our Role in Destroying the Ecology?
- Thread starter MMMariah
- Start date
Anyone that cites Bill Nye the engineering guy has zero credibility on this issue and is exposing the fact that their info is being spoon fed to them and are spilling it here. There are credible accounts of warmists utilizing bogus computer models to skew the data. If anybody is a meat head it is those that have zero experience in the field and only believe what they have been told to think on the issue. At least leftist scientists have some history of education on the matter as opposed to low information posters.
This isn't a word for world quote, but I like the analogy somebody else came up with on this.
It went something like, if 98% of the world's best engineers that specialized in bridge construction said that a newly formed bridge was highly unstable, very dangerous, and was going to kill people would you drive on it just because there was some strange fringe that said it might be different and because it would be more inconvenient at that very moment to do otherwise?
Yet when it comes to the climate and the stupidity from people that deny human caused climate change it's shocking the number of people that basically have no problem with almost exactly that line of thinking. It's scary, and is something that makes me fear for humanity that there can be so many people that are that purposefully ignorant (Or I should say stupid because there isn't much difference between intentional willful ignorance and stupidity.) That there can be so many people that can so readily and blindly go against overwhelming evidence is more than troubling, and is almost as troubling as the actual problems they are causing. It would be about as bad as if massive portions of the population started believing the world was flat because there was some weird political reason that line of thinking would be advantageous to them at that moment. Wouldn't that be scary to you?
What's also sad is that a lot of the people that are the cause of this won't even have to feel the pain or suffer the consequences of their own actions. They will be dead and they will leave it to people that follow in life after them to inherit a devastating problem they should have known about and fixed, but didn't because they just couldn't be bothered, and didn't want to sacrifice anything all while lying to themselves to hide their own actions. They will have reaped the profits and convenience off the pain and suffering of people that are just getting started in life and people not even born yet. Isn't that just a lovely thought? Even with the world irreparably damaged future generations won't even get the small satisfaction of gloating and shoving the idiots stupidity back into their own faces once it becomes so bad even those people can no longer deny it. Someday the world's people will curse the names of the ones that live now for all time for what we are doing.
It went something like, if 98% of the world's best engineers that specialized in bridge construction said that a newly formed bridge was highly unstable, very dangerous, and was going to kill people would you drive on it just because there was some strange fringe that said it might be different and because it would be more inconvenient at that very moment to do otherwise?
Yet when it comes to the climate and the stupidity from people that deny human caused climate change it's shocking the number of people that basically have no problem with almost exactly that line of thinking. It's scary, and is something that makes me fear for humanity that there can be so many people that are that purposefully ignorant (Or I should say stupid because there isn't much difference between intentional willful ignorance and stupidity.) That there can be so many people that can so readily and blindly go against overwhelming evidence is more than troubling, and is almost as troubling as the actual problems they are causing. It would be about as bad as if massive portions of the population started believing the world was flat because there was some weird political reason that line of thinking would be advantageous to them at that moment. Wouldn't that be scary to you?
What's also sad is that a lot of the people that are the cause of this won't even have to feel the pain or suffer the consequences of their own actions. They will be dead and they will leave it to people that follow in life after them to inherit a devastating problem they should have known about and fixed, but didn't because they just couldn't be bothered, and didn't want to sacrifice anything all while lying to themselves to hide their own actions. They will have reaped the profits and convenience off the pain and suffering of people that are just getting started in life and people not even born yet. Isn't that just a lovely thought? Even with the world irreparably damaged future generations won't even get the small satisfaction of gloating and shoving the idiots stupidity back into their own faces once it becomes so bad even those people can no longer deny it. Someday the world's people will curse the names of the ones that live now for all time for what we are doing.
Jesus Christ what a stupid analogy. To put that crap into perspective the engineers would be determining the structural integrity of a bridge that never existed and I mean bridges are an unknown quantity to mankind but bridges are real they are not subject to theory as to their existence . Find a better analogy. Better yet, show as much concern for the legacy that leaving trillions of dollars of massive debt is going to do to future generations and you might have an ounce of credibility. Because that is what is going to crush us not greenhouse gases. Your great grandchildren are going to wish they could punch you in your ovary.
I love when republican'ts say "there are scientists who skew the data..." and this information comes from where exactly? Which Koch brothers think tank??? And Bill Nye has been turned into a media star but the guy simply reports on scientific findings, not those in which he himself has come to conclusions upon. He is a brilliant educated man and surely being someone who called that fucktard on Fox "news" "one smart cookie" you could appreciate a well-educated person of science... oh wait, you don't think science is valid and prefer theory and faith and possibilities right? How do I keep forgetting this!!??!!
GodsEmbryo
Closed Account
That's not the point D-Rock was making. The point is that people are so obsessed it should be 100% instead of 98%.
Secondly your conclusion is wrong. Engineers DO determine the structural integrity of a bridge that never existed when a new bridge needs to be build, based on theory, computer models, the science behind it, and math. Structural engineers don't need a bridge to be build first before they would be able to decide if it's going to be stable or not. If a new bridge needs to be build and 98% of the enigneers said that based on their calculations and computer models it would collaps, would you build it?
Thirdly, you are making a false assumption that it's only going to cost trillions of dollars if climate change was man made. But while we are debating if it's man made or not, climate change IS happening. Or do you deny that as well? It's going to cost money no matter what. And because we are not doing anything because of the influence of politics and the polluting industries, it's going to cost us even more.
You didn't understand my post. I said the analogy was stupid because it would only be valid if bridges never existed. But thanks for helping me make my point even more. Because the analogy is comparing an actual viable structure to a theory. Of course structural integrity of structures can be determined before they are constructed. Another flaw in your comment is that my remark about debt had nothing to do with it being incurred do to warmist policies. Just irresponsible spending and the hypocrisy when he commented on the shape of the world that future generations would inherit due to irresponsible ecological policy and behavior and fiscal irresponsibility is inconsequential.
Do you even know of Nye's background without the assistance of Google? And no one discredits science . Only junk science. Which is what you are peddling. That and theory. And I am fairly certain that you are not qualified to analyze the data either from a bias or not.
GodsEmbryo
Closed Account
Nope, I did not misunderstand your post. But let's play along and give you another analogy that suits your criteria: a space elevator. It does not exist, yet we know we cannot construct it at the moment because of the science, the computer models, the math, etc... behind it. So, if 98% of the scientists would say we cannot construct a space elevator because it would collaps, would you build it?
You don not understand what a theory is. Please see my post #47 in this thread, but I'll quote it here:
I even posted a scientific study a few posts earlier that shows a direct link between CO2 coming from poluting industries and warming of the planet. I posted it especially for people who say "Oh, but it's just a theory" or "It's just based on computer models" and all that jazz. This DIRECT evidence comes from finetuned observations (I quote from the article: "caught in the act"). Did you read it? Why do you still see climate change as just an idea?
I understand that your comment about debt wasn't directly about global warming and I should have been more careful with my words. Yet if you say that a massive debt is what is going to crush us and not greenhouse gases, you fail to understand that global warming IS going to cost money, A LOT, whether you agree or not if it's man made.
Then you are stating a hypothesis as fact. So far this hypothesis is costing a lot of money remember Solyndra? And until chicken littles like Al Gore stop making bogus claims like the ice caps will be completely melted in 10 years which has come and gone BTW, then I will remain skeptical. Look, I just took a trip to Costa Rica to surf. I care about the environment and our oceans in particular. This whole debate is rooted with anti capitalism and is what drives it. And that is not to mention the great changes and events that took place on this planet before human beings and industry were made the scapegoat . those events happened some of them, just thousands of years ago not millions. As far as the space elevator goes, it is interesting that you mentioned that as learned about the research about 10 years ago when a client that applied for NASA research funding told me that a company received a grant to explore the possibilities . the high speed plasma rocket engine was born from that same program. Neither are proven that they can be developed or become operational. Interesting concepts though.
GodsEmbryo
Closed Account
You did not answer my questions.
If 98% of the scientists would say we cannot construct a space elevator because it would collaps, would you build it?
I posted a scientific study a few posts earlier that shows a direct link between CO2 coming from poluting industries and warming of the planet. I posted it especially for people who say "Oh, but it's just a theory" or "It's just based on computer models" and all that jazz. This DIRECT evidence comes from finetuned observations (I quote from the article: "caught in the act"). Did you read it? Why do you still see climate change as just an idea? Do you deny human made climate change based on this direct evidence?
Animus Fox had that same question. The Earth has periodical warmed and cooled in the past leading to warm periods and ice ages. That's a natural cycle. These were a result related to Milankovitch cycles. A Milankovitch cycle is a periodical oscilation of the earth's tilt, the precession of the tilt, and stretching and squishing of the Earth's orbit. We know the present global warming is not because of a Milankovitch cycle, proven by radiation levels.
You can read about it here: source
Or you can watch (somewhere starting from 4:35):
Care to elaborate?
If 98% of the scientists would say we cannot construct a space elevator because it would collaps, would you build it?
I posted a scientific study a few posts earlier that shows a direct link between CO2 coming from poluting industries and warming of the planet. I posted it especially for people who say "Oh, but it's just a theory" or "It's just based on computer models" and all that jazz. This DIRECT evidence comes from finetuned observations (I quote from the article: "caught in the act"). Did you read it? Why do you still see climate change as just an idea? Do you deny human made climate change based on this direct evidence?
Animus Fox had that same question. The Earth has periodical warmed and cooled in the past leading to warm periods and ice ages. That's a natural cycle. These were a result related to Milankovitch cycles. A Milankovitch cycle is a periodical oscilation of the earth's tilt, the precession of the tilt, and stretching and squishing of the Earth's orbit. We know the present global warming is not because of a Milankovitch cycle, proven by radiation levels.
You can read about it here: source
Or you can watch (somewhere starting from 4:35):
Care to elaborate?
So for someone who says they care about the environment and the oceans in particular you are on the side that is fighting with billions of dollars to keep all regulations from which will allow them to continue polluting it? Why? The right has a favorite saying "If it weren't for those damn environmentalists..." and various forms of that phrase. They blame our oil prices on environmentalists. People on your side still say that the BP oil "spill" wasn't serious and was used for propaganda by the left. Sean Hannity shrieked night after night about it being the liberal media trying to convince people that oil drilling in the gulf was bad all while millions of gallons of oil pumped into the gulf of mexico every day. he had people on who claimed that its no different than seepage which is absurd. The reality was that colossal moron GW Bush got rid of about 90% of the inspectors who were supposed to be inspecting the wells every 3 months. There was zero oversight and no accountability because of the republican president and house at the time. (The very same ones who took away funding for the DOJ financial crimes prosecutions)
I saw the effects of this first hand with grey seagulls, dead sea gulls, dead fish, oil slicks, balls of oil on the beachs and the bird rescue facilities packed with birds coated in oil, which is cancer causing. The vacation rental business in the gulf went to shit for a year as well. Your side continues to fight making long line fishing illegal. Your side continues to fight to regulate the stone crab rules which now allow both claws to be taken instead of just one, which will surely cause huge issues in the stone crab population.
So if you REALLY care like you say then you wouldn't vote for dip-shits like Frank Burns who doesn't give a fuck about the environment because god didn't tell moses that humans were going to destroy the earth.
I saw the effects of this first hand with grey seagulls, dead sea gulls, dead fish, oil slicks, balls of oil on the beachs and the bird rescue facilities packed with birds coated in oil, which is cancer causing. The vacation rental business in the gulf went to shit for a year as well. Your side continues to fight making long line fishing illegal. Your side continues to fight to regulate the stone crab rules which now allow both claws to be taken instead of just one, which will surely cause huge issues in the stone crab population.
So if you REALLY care like you say then you wouldn't vote for dip-shits like Frank Burns who doesn't give a fuck about the environment because god didn't tell moses that humans were going to destroy the earth.
I still chuckle at these people who believe in god, for which there is ZERO evidence or proof and is the BIGGEST theory with the most improbability in the history of mankind, yet they fight tooth & nail to discredit proven science calling it "unproven theory".
I guess if god were getting in the way of corporations cutting costs he'd finally be questioned too.
I guess if god were getting in the way of corporations cutting costs he'd finally be questioned too.
You should have more posts like the last one Mariah. It was filled with honest questions and not insults. I will try and respond to both you and Embryo when I have more time. Gotta go to work now and I don't want to go after being on vacation. Have a good day.
I am headed to LA on Thursday for 4 days then 2 days after I'm home I'm heading to the Keys to film some stuff for my show and meet with some potential investors in making Mariah's Roadside a reality. Restaurant & marina somewhere in the middle Keys featuring fresh fish, crab, lobster, oysters, etc... all boat/farm-to-table. Then to Key West to see some friends and have some fun. All places that will be gone by the end of this century if things continue as they are now.
As far as that last post, you need to understand that I am passionate about this. To see people so indifferent about killing 100 million sharks a year sickens me. To hear people say that pumping tons of black smoke into the atmosphere 24/7 until the sky is brown does no harm sickens me. To know that there is a trash heap in the ocean the size of texas and that one side that encompasses tens of millions of people say it doesn't hurt anything sickens me. I put my money where my big loud mouth is constantly. Yes I vote against my own interests because if I get my way I'll be paying a lot more in taxes, but it would be worth it. I cannot understand how someone could look at Mexico City or downtown LA or Beijing with their brown skyline and think that doesn't mean anything. The fact that asthma was something very few people had 200 years ago but now affects 30% of Americans says it does mean something. Allergies are far more common than they were 50 years ago. Throat and lung cancer in people who never smoked in their lives is now more common than ever.
I care about these things and I get fucking pissed when people are fucking dismissive of it saying it's not proven yet believe in the bible and god. That's infuriating because they vote. They influence policy and law. They could be making a difference but instead they want nothing to change. That is horrifying to me so I get mouthy and insulting because to me that side is insulting as well.
As far as that last post, you need to understand that I am passionate about this. To see people so indifferent about killing 100 million sharks a year sickens me. To hear people say that pumping tons of black smoke into the atmosphere 24/7 until the sky is brown does no harm sickens me. To know that there is a trash heap in the ocean the size of texas and that one side that encompasses tens of millions of people say it doesn't hurt anything sickens me. I put my money where my big loud mouth is constantly. Yes I vote against my own interests because if I get my way I'll be paying a lot more in taxes, but it would be worth it. I cannot understand how someone could look at Mexico City or downtown LA or Beijing with their brown skyline and think that doesn't mean anything. The fact that asthma was something very few people had 200 years ago but now affects 30% of Americans says it does mean something. Allergies are far more common than they were 50 years ago. Throat and lung cancer in people who never smoked in their lives is now more common than ever.
I care about these things and I get fucking pissed when people are fucking dismissive of it saying it's not proven yet believe in the bible and god. That's infuriating because they vote. They influence policy and law. They could be making a difference but instead they want nothing to change. That is horrifying to me so I get mouthy and insulting because to me that side is insulting as well.
If you want to do the math use the right ciffers. Where did you get your information from because you obviously don't know much about the danish tax system. First of all noone pays 66% of their full income. We have what may be called progressive tax in english which means some of us pay 66% of the last earned krone (the danish currency) but definitely not the first. Let's take a look at your example. If you make 800 a week which is low income in Denmark you pay 8% of the brutto income then you have a tax free deduction at approximately 300 and then pay 36% of the rest.
So if you only make 800 a week it looks like this 800-64(8% of 800)-156.96(36% of 736-300)=579.04.
A danish police oficer makes a lot more than 800 in his 37 working hours a week.
Did I mention the 6 weeks holyday a year?
Anyway this is about climate change so do as almost 50% of the copenhageners
Pierre they don't post facts, they post opinions they claim as facts. I love when people who have never lived or even been to a country can make statements as if they are there at that very moment posting away. Thank you for weighing in and proving that our system is ridiculous and that being happy should be the #1 goal of everyone. People would rather struggle and be miserable than to be happy? How is that possible? I guess that's why our country is in the position that it is.
Similar threads
