126 posts
I am going to go through and point out a few things in my posts in this thread.this time, not me joking around but posting an article link from the Washington Post. I'm always amused when words like "parroting" and "you just repeat what you were told because you haven't bothered to explore or learn enough to know it's wrong" are used. I have kindly pointed out several times, that any time you take one side of an argument, you tend to view that sides information as "fact" and the other sides information as "wrong." I have often been amused by people quoting "facts" when there is much information on the other side completely refuting the "information" provided and stating "facts" of their own that disprove it. I have done a little reading on Global Warming. I'm not debating anything. Just reminding some of you, that there are "facts" and there are "here is what we know currently" and then there is the all powerful "here is what our side believes and we and the media will do everything in our power to make our side look like facts, whether or not they are yet PROVEN. There are NUMEROUS articles, studies, etc. similar to this article. I didn't go looking for this. It was in the Cincinnati Enquirer last week.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html
The guy is an idiot, IMO. This article says nothing and offers no evidence of anything. It's an opinion piece void of facts and evidence and again, it says nothing. This guy supports taxing the hell out of people to reduce energy consumption. What a brilliant idea. :-?
Articles are one thing. Who wrote the article and their agenda is quite another. Why don't you just watch him on Fox News?
No one said that facts can't be sprinkled in with bullshit. It's the readers responsibility to recognize the bullshit. There is a huge difference between a doctor and bull shitter. He is not a scientist. He isn't educated in that field.
Honestly, not sure why you even posted that.
hook, this topic in the religion section is his point, don't you think? lol.
My point is I wouldn't read this guys articles, period. I really don't pay attention to where it is. So, guess I missed that. However, consider where your at. ;D Plus, his opinion is like a religious opinion anyway. ;D (Charles, not Howie)
Actually, didn't mean to post this in the religion section.
And, I wish the last three paragraphs were dropped so you didn't get the "oh it's just another conservative hater" vibe, which, obviously, you got. LOL
So, in this article, scientific models are noted, scientists are quoted, the UK's national weather service is quoted, fluid dynamics are discussed, but it's all just BS that's not even worth posting for discussion, right?
Once again, QUESTIONS! Not starting a debate. NOT taking a side. Just asking a question
Signed,
The guy formerly known as, the guy who only believes what he read and was told first and refuses to listen to anything different
I always want ask to Krauthammer if he was one of the "young invincibles" he talks about now in an effort to talk shit about the ACA, or more precisely talk shit about the insurance system we have here, i.e. "the young don't want to pay for the old and they shouldn't", except for the fact that that's how we do it here using pooled money in an insurance system to pay for those who need the treatment. It's funny that he reps these self centered conservative bullshit lines when he dove into a pool while at Harvard and proved himself to not be invincible, someone else pulled him out of the water, other people nursed and moved books page by page so he could continue his studies. He thinks he's the new Buckley, but don't they all, the Strangelove is strong with him...
So, is that two votes for "nothing at all valid in the article?"
What do you think is valid about the article? He doesn't say much, basically "we don't KNOW", no shit
DreamTheaterRules — Mar 06, 2014
So, in this article, scientific models are noted, scientists are quoted, the UK's national weather service is quoted, fluid dynamics are discussed, but it's all just BS that's not even worth posting for discussion, right?
What is the information you got from the article? What do people on the other side say about the same information?
EDIT: I thought this was pretty on:
"Ive long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "
This might show the old Krauthammer who was a lib. He spews cute lines for a living like, "If you're young and conservative, you have no heart. If you're old and liberal, you have no head", but cute lines aren't truth and he forgets it, thinking that if a line is clever enough it will be believed
So, after discussing this, I go online and search for more information. Needless to say, there is all kinds of information on this. From ALL kinds of sources, including from the weather departments of other countries, and major universities, etc. The information you find is ALL over the map.
This is not the only article I have seen like this. Many cite studies showing long term trends and "cycles" and refute much of the current BUZZ as being touted as fact when some is too short term to call, some is flatly refuted, etc.
So, in ASKING if there is nothing here worth reading, I'm more gauging the response. I've seen other articles BY scientists etc, saying much of what he's saying.
Sorry, can't help you on "the other side," I'm not on a side. I'm still looking at what both sides are saying and not trying to blow either one off as "full of $hit" when both have scientific sources of information. Which I supposed proves his point. There is not much "settle science." Each new breakthrough leads to more information.
I find it so interesting that people take such strong "my side is right, and these are the facts" positions in this type discussion. Even if you don't believe in God, and while I ABSOLUTELY think we need to reduce our carbon footprint worldwide, I read several years ago that one blast from an erupting volcano did more damage to the ozone layer than years worth of manmade carbon footprint... can't remember the statistics exactly, but, let's just say it lets you know how little you/we are in control of.
A lot of people try to go with "teach the controversy" which doesn't usually say much about the issue they are talking about. Like the volcano line, sounds cute...what does it mean? How does it relate? What are we experiencing each year? Who is the person making the point representing?
DreamTheaterRules — Mar 06, 2014...while I ABSOLUTELY think we need to reduce our carbon footprint worldwide...
??
if you're going to accept the premise... what are you even arguing?
And I don't think that Krauthammer thinks we should "reduce our carbon footprint worldwide", he just thinks that it' can't be good to be be pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere
DreamTheaterRules — Mar 06, 2014this time, not me joking around but posting an article link from the Washington Post. I'm always amused when words like "parroting" and "you just repeat what you were told because you haven't bothered to explore or learn enough to know it's wrong" are used. I have kindly pointed out several times, that any time you take one side of an argument, you tend to view that sides information as "fact" and the other sides information as "wrong." I have often been amused by people quoting "facts" when there is much information on the other side completely refuting the "information" provided and stating "facts" of their own that disprove it. I have done a little reading on Global Warming. I'm not debating anything. Just reminding some of you, that there are "facts" and there are "here is what we know currently" and then there is the all powerful "here is what our side believes and we and the media will do everything in our power to make our side look like facts, whether or not they are yet PROVEN. There are NUMEROUS articles, studies, etc. similar to this article. I didn't go looking for this. It was in the Cincinnati Enquirer last week.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html
"By Charles Krauthammer
Opinion Writer"
And also, well known to those of us who watch CNN's election coverage, and very much a conservative.
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?
This site is well worth reading. Opinion pieces on either side, by and large, are not.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
"The science isn't settled".
https://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science-intermediate.htm
This line of argument betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science. Firstly, it presumes science exists in a binary state - that science isn't settled until it crosses some imaginary line after which it's finally settled. On the contrary, science by its very nature is never 100% settled. Secondly, it presumes that poor understanding in one area invalidates good understanding in other areas.
Every argument you have about climate science is answered here.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
DTR
Thought process.....
1st, who is this guy that wrote the article? Well, it's the same guy on fox news I see all the time. 2nd what is he saying exactly? Answered, as I said, pretty much nothing. 3rd, lets look at him closer, we know he's a conservative, but what's his background? How do I know he supports taxing the fuck out of people for energy to reduce consumption? How do I know he was a doctor? Basic search. WIKI.
This is the second or third thing that comes up when you do a google search....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/charles-krauthammer
Notice anything? Washington Post? Him slamming Obama on healthcare, wars, etc. Even your own article shows up. This guy has credibility with conservatives only. People who value this guys opinion just simply doesn't think. Logic, critical thinking, reasoning, the desire for the same type truth you look for in religion. That's why his opinion doesn't mean crap. People like Charger, myself, Trip, look deeper than this article and what this guy says to determine the value of what he said. And the value is 0. You may not be liberal, you may not like liberal ideas, etc, but you should respect the fact that at least here, 3 people want the truth and read, search, and find out not only if this article is valid, but also if the writer has any credibility to start with.
Christians think they have the truth because it says so in the Bible, for example. Preachers yell about it all the time. Do not question the Bible. And you study this thing and put lots of time learning about it. And, it pisses you off, or frustrates you, when your questioned or people get a little salty during a discussion about it.
Well, people that want facts/truth, also get frustrated because their criteria to determine the truth is much different than yours. We value science, studies by credible persons, facts and evidence. We value the truth too. And when offered facts, evidence, studies, etc to show our perspective is valid and credible, and it's ignored because it was 10 degrees for the last 2 days in Ohio, well.... it's a little irritating. that is a example, by the way, because of course, you haven't stated your opinion yet. ;D Guilt by association?? ;D
2 very different ways of looking at things, to say the least.
I'll leave it at that.
charger — Mar 06, 2014"The science isn't settled".
https://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science-intermediate.htm
This line of argument betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science. Firstly, it presumes science exists in a binary state - that science isn't settled until it crosses some imaginary line after which it's finally settled. On the contrary, science by its very nature is never 100% settled. Secondly, it presumes that poor understanding in one area invalidates good understanding in other areas.
Every argument you have about climate science is answered here.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
I'm so tired now my eyes are burning. I for one, will read these articles tomorrow. Just browsing quickly through them, looks very interesting. I may have read them before, can't remember. But I'll read them again anyway.
[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1394125373/0#12 date=1394137392]And I don't think that Krauthammer thinks we should "reduce our carbon footprint worldwide", he just thinks that it' can't be good to be be pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere
I'll cheggit, seems like he's said that about Obammer re: carbon credits and regs for new power plants. I've seen him support the Keystone pipeline on FOX and make the weak point that China and India are ramping up coal and oil use as if they aren't making all our shit with a lot of that energy and we still use/waste way too much here as it is. Most of his shtick is fake free market stuff you hear from the right, it's all in the framing and speaking with confidence, when these cats get real questions they break down.
EDIT: Do you mean that he at one time favored a tax on gas? I found a few articles where he thought that at $4 people would buy less gas or mebee waste less? I'm not sure he would continue along those lines now, I'd like to see him take it up when gas goes up again in the summer, resist the Bammer must bring down the price and blame and go straight to "we need to pay European type prices for gas"
In general, he thinks higher prices will reduce consumption. Energy consumption. To force higher prices, he supports much higher taxes. On all energy. Thats what I've interpreted him meaning. Gas too. That will certainly help out the poor, right? :( Might as well take cars from the less fortunate. Same thing. ;D
I'd be down to hear him rock that higher taxes line on FOX. I don't remember seeing it yet and I watch his commentary there pretty much on the daily. Maybe he stfu while he's there because any talk of taxes = Obambam.
EDIT: I could only find him supporting a gas tax which would be offset by a payroll tax cut as his gimmic for bringing down our overall gas usage.
ironsheep — Mar 06, 2014[quote author=DreamTheaterRules link=1394125373/0#9 date=1394135010]...while I ABSOLUTELY think we need to reduce our carbon footprint worldwide...
??
if you're going to accept the premise... what are you even arguing?
In two posts, I clearly stated (even BOLDED) that I was ASKING, not debating. Not arguing anything. What I'm asking is, are those who take global warming as "fact" just blowing off every statement that says there is not enough evidence yet, or even refutes it, as conservative BS? I ask because there is plenty more of these articles and reports. I've read a few. I've seen a LOT. I see bits and pieces of them getting info from weather authorities, those who study weather, etc. and it's pretty clear that not everyone is on board.
And to review!I'm not sure how I could be arguing something when I have refused to take state which side I'm on, or if I'm even on a side. ;)
BINGEWOOD — Mar 06, 2014A lot of people try to go with "teach the controversy" which doesn't usually say much about the issue they are talking about. Like the volcano line, sounds cute...what does it mean? How does it relate? What are we experiencing each year? Who is the person making the point representing?
The volcano line was made several years ago. The POINT of it was that, no matter what we do, greater forces do or can influence it far more than we can. Do I think we need to (globally) do better? yeah. Do I think we (the rest of the world) need to do something about China who pollutes so much it's sick? Yeah, big time. The numbers in the volcano statistic weren't "cute" they were staggering. I guess I better find it. Something like one eruption of this volcano (which erupts every so often) did more damage to the ozone layer (my mistake here, meant to say "the atmosphere) than 10s of years, I mean it was crazy, may like 50 years or more, worth of all the damage the whole world did on it's own.
Cow farts and politicians (hot air) could be two of the biggest contributors. ;)
yeah, but the point is, there is no point to skepticism once you have accepted the premises. the only way human forced "climate change" is assailable is if the underlying data is wrong/unreliable/analyzed improperly. I'm not in a position (nor am I inclined) to rigorously examine the data so I leave it at that. I don't have an informed opinion but my intuition leads me to skepticism (largely due to the corrupt nature of man... and skepticism is my default anyway)... but that's all it is, intuition. so, yes, they are blowing off skeptics because almost no skeptics talk about the data. the science on top of the data is logical/analytical and being skeptical about logic is irrational... so why take that seriously?
but again, if you think it's important to reduce your carbon footprint, you have accepted the data and are acting accordingly. otherwise, you have acted irrationally and adopted behavior to avert something you don't think your behavior can impact.
BINGEWOOD — Mar 07, 2014I'd be down to hear him rock that higher taxes line on FOX. I don't remember seeing it yet and I watch his commentary there pretty much on the daily. Maybe he stfu while he's there because any talk of taxes = Obambam.
EDIT: I could only find him supporting a gas tax which would be offset by a payroll tax cut as his gimmic for bringing down our overall gas usage.
Pretty much the same premise. If I find that article I'll post it for you.
DreamTheaterRules — Mar 07, 2014[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1394125373/0#10 date=1394135795]A lot of people try to go with "teach the controversy" which doesn't usually say much about the issue they are talking about. Like the volcano line, sounds cute...what does it mean? How does it relate? What are we experiencing each year? Who is the person making the point representing?
The volcano line was made several years ago. The POINT of it was that, no matter what we do, greater forces do or can influence it far more than we can. Do I think we need to (globally) do better? yeah. Do I think we (the rest of the world) need to do something about China who pollutes so much it's sick? Yeah, big time. The numbers in the volcano statistic weren't "cute" they were staggering. I guess I better find it. Something like one eruption of this volcano (which erupts every so often) did more damage to the ozone layer than 10s of years, I mean it was crazy, may like 50 years or more, worth of all the damage the whole world did on it's own.
I though we were talking about global warming being a lagit concern. Now your talking about how to fix it. I'd say you have stated your side of things by your opinion on how to fix the problem. I am assuming your on board with global warming so why question it? The article isn't lagit or valid because if you want facts and the entire story on global warming, the info is at your fingertips. Forget this clown and get to the facts, evidence and data that count. Your making this more difficult than it has to be. IMO. We can't stop a volcano, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, etc. so why concern yourself with it? We can purchase smaller homes, hybrid cars, quit using inefficient fire places, and I think it would be much better to move goods by train, rather than 18 wheelers, for example.
do you have any evidence or data showing that " smaller homes, hybrid cars, quit using inefficient fire places, and... goods by train, rather than 18 wheelers" would have any measurable/meaningful impact on the climate? I'm serious - I've not read anything that shows those kinds of modifications would do anything worthwhile at this point... would be interested if you have something.
ironsheep — Mar 07, 2014do you have any evidence or data showing that " smaller homes, hybrid cars, quit using inefficient fire places, and... goods by train, rather than 18 wheelers" would have any measurable/meaningful impact on the climate? I'm serious - I've not read anything that shows those kinds of modifications would do anything worthwhile at this point... would be interested if you have something.
I could probably find plenty. Here's the common sense part, and keep in mind that these are just very small things that I feel would be a good start.
Smaller homes require less material, less energy to heat and cool. Hybrid cars use less fuel and reduce emissions. Fire places are the least efficient heat source that I'm aware of in homes. Move goods by train... less tires for the trucks, trucks get about 3 to 10 mpg by the way and how many times have you seen black smoke pour out the exhaust of these things? These things may be small to you and I now, but what about if all Americans did these things? And what about China jumping on board? And Japan, and Russia, etc? Then maybe you make a difference.
Google it.
This is the first article from the search I did. Not a very good one, but their are plenty to choose from. I can only think that you haven't searched much, i thought these were kinda common sense items. I don't think I've ever read about my train example, it just makes sense to me personally as I travel for work and the big rigs are everywhere.
Here's 50 more. Notice the focus on driving and fuel efficient cars, translate that to big rigs and boom, there ya go. Check the focus on energy efficient homes.... windows etc. Air and heat in the homes. The things I'm mentioning are reduce global warming 101. Surely you have read about these things. :-/
http://globalwarming-facts.info/50-tips/
I know about how to reduce carbon emissions etc. - I want to know if it makes any difference or if the situation is already on it's path and can't be altered. I've read both views... thought you had info about it that I hadn't seen.
one reason discussions here suck is that everyone likes to comment as though the people reading are illiterate morons. I'm guilty too, I admit - but, meh, fuck it. forget I asked.
Again.... I HAVE STATED NOTHING! My saying that we need to do better has as much to do with pollution concerns as it does with global warming. Dude, gas for the first time ever, stayed over $3.00/gallon for a whole calender year in 2013. The oil companies get richer and richer while the economy goes down the tubes. I don't know how lower income people survive. I really don't. And gas at $1.75/gallon could fix a WHOLE LOT of what's wrong with our economy.
But my saying we need to try to go greener doesn't mean I agree or disagree with global warming as fact. And if they were to do something like tax fuel even more to push us away from using it.... I'd like to seem them try to bail us out of the economic disaster that would result from that. One reason I pointed out the volcano thing, is that it is completely out of our control and yet it affects the atmosphere MORE than we do and that's IF you can prove what Sheep asked above. Meaning, we can PROVE in tangible form how much damage a particular category does.
Then when you think that if the whole world stopped using anything that fuel/ burning anything etc. for 10 years, and that the vocano erupted and did more harm in minutes than we did good in years... well, I don't know. Maybe that doesn't make you think at all. Does me. :)
DreamTheaterRules — Mar 07, 2014[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1394125373/0#10 date=1394135795]A lot of people try to go with "teach the controversy" which doesn't usually say much about the issue they are talking about. Like the volcano line, sounds cute...what does it mean? How does it relate? What are we experiencing each year? Who is the person making the point representing?
The volcano line was made several years ago. The POINT of it was that, no matter what we do, greater forces do or can influence it far more than we can. Do I think we need to (globally) do better? yeah. Do I think we (the rest of the world) need to do something about China who pollutes so much it's sick? Yeah, big time. The numbers in the volcano statistic weren't "cute" they were staggering. I guess I better find it. Something like one eruption of this volcano (which erupts every so often) did more damage to the ozone layer than 10s of years, I mean it was crazy, may like 50 years or more, worth of all the damage the whole world did on it's own.
Again, you need to look at the science. What does a volcano do? (hint: answer is below)
The "ozone layer" hasn't been considered to be the reason the polar ice is melting for 20+ years now. We're talking about
increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, causing the earth to warm, and mankind being the main contributor to that. I have posted the science. You can read it. It is super annoying that you won't -- but will just keep saying "it was staggering" or "I've read LOTS" or "the science isn't settled."
All the science is available for you. I posted a really excellent site that takes every argument against global warming and methodically, scientifically addresses it. It's not a liberal or conservative site either. It's a science-based site.
This is why I get so frustrated in discussions with you. You claim to be impartial, but never look at anything I post. It's not that I think you're an idiot. It's not that I don't think you can argue effectively. It's that you won't participate in a literate discussion--you won't read anything we post. I've read the Bible, many times. If you asked me to read a chapter and discuss, I would. I even read this Krauthammer garbage--so I could discuss it with you from a point of knowledge. It's totally frustrating that so many of us will meet you halfway,
only to find that we're the only ones there. If you would just do your half, and make it an actual discussion, it would be one. "It was staggering" is not a discussion.
By the way, if you knew the science, you'd know that:
- volcanoes actually contribute to global cooling--COOLING--because the particles they cast out into the atmosphere scatter sunlight. And that we are actually in a reduced period of global volcanic activity (which SCIENCE has figured out contributes .04 degrees C to our warming in the last 50 years).
- And that, no, the sun isn't hotter right now, it's actually at a 100-year temperature low.
- And that despite people like Krauthammer saying that the earth has been cooling for 10 years now, 2010 was the hottest year we've ever recorded.
All the science is available. Saying "I heard something" or "I read somewhere" isn't science. For all I know, you heard it on Fox & Friends, or you read it in the opinion pages. There's plenty of legitimate science. And 97% of climate scientists agree that warming is happening. You can certainly say that there's a big argument, that it's not settled, that there's still lots of dissent. But 3%? What would you make of those odds? Do you think that's a vast sea of doubt? Would you take 3% vs 97%?
ironsheep — Mar 07, 2014do you have any evidence or data showing that " smaller homes, hybrid cars, quit using inefficient fire places, and... goods by train, rather than 18 wheelers" would have any measurable/meaningful impact on the climate? I'm serious - I've not read anything that shows those kinds of modifications would do anything worthwhile at this point... would be interested if you have something.
To me, it's a moot point. It may not save us from our own destruction, but why not do what we can? All the proof I need that we are at least on the right path is --go look at a modern picture of Beijing. Go look at the air quality there. Compare that to the worst US city... even Los Angeles. They've taken to putting up huge TV screens to show the sunrise and sunset in Beijing because you can't see it. I've seen pictures out hotel windows where people can't see the buildings across the street from them. And I remember when LA was a smoggy mess.
Here's a fun simulator.
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/what-would-your-city-look-beijings-air-smog-simulator
Note that you can simulate smog for your city up to an air quality index of 500. That's the official end of the chart. Though Beijing this summer reached the unchartable number of 755.
Here's the blue sky, on an LED screen in Tianenmen Square. And no, that's not fog.
Charger made my point DTR. If your not going to read the damn information you ask for and keep asking the same questions with the answer just above on the same page or whatever, how the fuck can we have a conversation? This is the point when when the people who want the "truth" point out the fact your not reading the post that answers your questions. then you'll say a few more ignorant things and ask the questions all over again. At that point, we lose respect for what you have to say in this thread and treat you like the idiot your acting like. With all due respect, and love of course.
So, all the bitching and complaining you've done about people being mean and the reason some are mean are playing out in this thread. It's a perfect example of why folks are not respected in some threads and are spoken to in a harsh tone.
Read the articles Charger posted. They answer your questions. then you won't be asking the same crappy questions over and over again. This isn't as hard as your making it. You have a preconceived idea that we're being mean to you yet you ignore the damn info you ask for. Stratman did the same thing, by the way. Never read shit. just kept flapping that big mouth and ignoring the facts and evidence presented to him. Hell, you don't even have to search the net to get the answers you want, Charger did it for you.
Now I'm calling your bluff. State what side of the Global warming coin your on. Science, facts and evidence.... or made up half truths to further a agenda/bullshit. If your going to be involved in this debate, state your case dude. Cause your not making sense.
I love you. I want to drink beer with you. Your acting stupid, but I'm liberal and understand your problems. I hope you have a wonderful day and when you pass away you have 78 virgins and wings that allow you to continue your professional softball career, if God allows it of course. ;D ;D
ironsheep — Mar 07, 2014I know about how to reduce carbon emissions etc. - I want to know if it makes any difference or if the situation is already on it's path and can't be altered. I've read both views... thought you had info about it that I hadn't seen.
one reason discussions here suck is that everyone likes to comment as though the people reading are illiterate morons. I'm guilty too, I admit - but, meh, fuck it. forget I asked.
Maybe I misunderstood your question. Give me the benefit of the doubt sir, please.
But no, I'm not a scientist involved in a study you don't know about. ;D If you have a computer, you have all the info I have. And you didn't say anything about the stuff in this post, in your previous post. This is a new question.
I just didn't at all understand your previous post, apparently. I don't think your a moron at all, in fact, now I'm wondering about myself. :-/
Maybe I was thinking about Howie while typing my response to you and it got all mixed up or something. ;D ;D
My bad if I misunderstood.
Here's your previous post...
"do you have any evidence or data showing that " smaller homes, hybrid cars, quit using inefficient fire places, and... goods by train, rather than 18 wheelers" would have any measurable/meaningful impact on the climate? I'm serious - I've not read anything that shows those kinds of modifications would do anything worthwhile at this point... would be interested if you have something."
As far as I can see, these are two different questions entirely. Am I wrong?
I guess Tripper was on to something with the quoting for clarity... hah!
I'm sorry, I was irritated and didn't take the time to compose something that would thank you for your post and redirect to my new comment. I just saw what you posted about changing behavior and thought you had read something I hadn't... assuming we were on the exact same page, which of course, we're not because you don't live in my head... lol. my bad, thanks for the generous reply.
Ok, the train is going off the track here. My posts about pollution were off topic. But now we're going all Bert Cave with the comments. Google this for yourself. You'll find plenty of information and not all of it agrees with other. My question was simple. Do you write off even a professor, scientist, etc. who doesn't completely agree with you, as a republican conservative "idiot?"
Comments like - You can read it. It is super annoying that you won't -- but will just keep saying "it was staggering" or "I've read LOTS"
. You guys are both capable of using google and you both ALREADY KNOW that if you do, you will find information that's all over the charts.
And this post...
Charger made my point DTR. If your not going to read the damn information you ask for and keep asking the same questions with the answer just above on the same page or whatever, how the fuck can we have a conversation? This is the point when when the people who want the "truth" point out the fact your not reading the post that answers your questions. then you'll say a few more ignorant things and ask the questions all over again. At that point, we lose respect for what you have to say in this thread and treat you like the idiot your acting like. With all due respect, and love of course.
So, all the bitching and complaining you've done about people being mean and the reason some are mean are playing out in this thread. It's a perfect example of why folks are not respected in some threads and are spoken to in a harsh tone.
Read the articles Charger posted. They answer your questions. then you won't be asking the same crappy questions over and over again. This isn't as hard as your making it. You have a preconceived idea that we're being mean to you yet you ignore the damn info you ask for. Stratman did the same thing, by the way. Never read shit. just kept flapping that big mouth and ignoring the facts and evidence presented to him. Hell, you don't even have to search the net to get the answers you want, Charger did it for you.
Now I'm calling your bluff. State what side of the Global warming coin your on. Science, facts and evidence.... or made up half truths to further a agenda/bullshit. If your going to be involved in this debate, state your case dude. Cause your not making sense.
I read every link he sent. Already stated I DID search the net and got conflicting information, as YOU would well know if you searched the net. Which, once again, is why I was asking QUESTIONS. :)
while I realize this is COMPLETELY irrelevant, I am at work guys. My making a statement or two while I'm on hold or waiting on something, does not mean I have the time to just stop working and read every link. But, as in the past, I will when i get the chance. I am at work. Please don't give me 2 much crap for not doing what I haven't had time to do yet. I will read all the links completely, and I won't reply again here until I have. :)
p.s. I WILL say this first though. The pics Charger posted are what I was talking about earlier, and I worry FAR more about that, than global warming. That is far more of a threat to those people, and eventually that region, than global warming is.
DreamTheaterRules — Mar 07, 2014p.s. I WILL say this first though. The pics Charger posted are what I was talking about earlier, and I worry FAR more about that, than global warming. That is far more of a threat to those people, and eventually that region, than global warming is.
Smog is a direct threat to those people. Climate change affects all of humanity. Smog isn't permanent--LA was shrouded in smog 30 years ago. Climate change will last much much longer than 30 years.
LA air has improved greatly over the last 30.
The volcano is used to make you feel that our consumption doesn't matter, though there are plenty of global warming believers that think it's too late anyway and say consume away, and to give a talking (parrot) point. Whether it is valid or not doesn't matter to the disseminators.
charger — Mar 07, 2014[quote author=DreamTheaterRules link=1394125373/25#37 date=1394226890]p.s. I WILL say this first though. The pics Charger posted are what I was talking about earlier, and I worry FAR more about that, than global warming. That is far more of a threat to those people, and eventually that region, than global warming is.
Smog is a direct threat to those people. Climate change affects all of humanity. Smog isn't permanent--LA was shrouded in smog 30 years ago. Climate change will last much much longer than 30 years.
Well said Charger.
See how short sighted your thinking is here, DTR? Thats exactly what I was talking about earlier. Your eyes don't always show you lifes greatest threats.
You have to think just a bit here to now. ;D
here we go again... I comment on smog, I simply say that right now, I'm more concerned with that than global warming.... and that is short sited? AN immediate threat concerns me more, right now, than a "possible" long term slowly developing one, and it's short sited... hmmm
Left field.... ;)
DreamTheaterRules — Mar 08, 2014here we go again... I comment on smog, I simply say that right now, I'm more concerned with that than global warming.... and that is short sited? AN immediate threat concerns me more, right now, than a "possible" long term slowly developing one, and it's short sited... hmmm
Left field.... ;)
If you read the articles and payed attention to the 97% to 3% figure Charger pointed out to you, and you understand science, it's way more than a possibility. It's like as close as you can get to an absolute.
So, you would try to save villages of people while the country burned down rather than sacrifice a few people while you found a solution to the problem that would save country and humanity? If that's even 2 things in this context?
In this instance, the "village" would be the 400 billion (slight bumped for dramatic effect) people in China who probably can't even breathe in that crap, vs. a very very slowly increasing temperature trend for everyone. That's one BIG village.
But that's not what we're talking about here. Stay on topic! ;D
Your a village person aren't you?
Look, you can't be missing the point his bad, right?
Hookbender — Mar 08, 2014Your a village person aren't you?
Yes, he's on the far right (no PhotoShopping required!). ;D
Thats the most over used picture in your act.
Wow. For the first time since my initial post, I now have had time to read the whole thread. Every post. Most of the links. Interesting.
I simply asked what you thought of the article. I then asked if you discount everything in it even when he cites Englands weather bureau etc. Again, I JUST ASKED. Then I did get side tracked a bit and mentioned a concern about pollution in China, and I said that i thought that globally and individually it would be wise for us to reduce our carbon footprint. And, I did mistakenly say "ozone layer" instead of "atmosphere."
In the process, I have pissed people off for not reading their posts (on work time). I have had it explained to me that i pretty much don't know anything and just believe what I am told. My religion has been brought into the conversation, and we've had posts like this...
Charger made my point DTR. If your not going to read the damn information you ask for and keep asking the same questions with the answer just above on the same page or whatever, how the fuck can we have a conversation? This is the point when when the people who want the "truth" point out the fact your not reading the post that answers your questions. then you'll say a few more ignorant things and ask the questions all over again. At that point, we lose respect for what you have to say in this thread and treat you like the idiot your acting like. With all due respect, and love of course.
So, all the bitching and complaining you've done about people being mean and the reason some are mean are playing out in this thread. It's a perfect example of why folks are not respected in some threads and are spoken to in a harsh tone.
Read the articles Charger posted. They answer your questions. then you won't be asking the same crappy questions over and over again. This isn't as hard as your making it. You have a preconceived idea that we're being mean to you yet you ignore the damn info you ask for. Stratman did the same thing, by the way. Never read shit. just kept flapping that big mouth and ignoring the facts and evidence presented to him. Hell, you don't even have to search the net to get the answers you want, Charger did it for you.
Now I'm calling your bluff. State what side of the Global warming coin your on. Science, facts and evidence.... or made up half truths to further a agenda/bullshit. If your going to be involved in this debate, state your case dude. Cause your not making sense.
I foolishly didn't expect this reaction when I had NEVER stated what my position was, I just asked yours. I think i get it. I still have never stated my position on global warming. From the posts above, you'd think I had stated it then stood toe to toe arguing it for about 10 posts. Give me a chance to read the damn posts before you decide you are qualified to read my mind and argue with what I think, even though it's never been stated ;D
That's what Hook was saying, "Now I'm calling your bluff. State what side of the Global warming coin your on. Science, facts and evidence.... or made up half truths to further a agenda/bullshit. If your going to be involved in this debate, state your case dude. Cause your not making sense. "
DreamTheaterRules — Mar 08, 2014 Wow. For the first time since my initial post, I now have had time to read the whole thread. Every post. Most of the links. Interesting.
I simply asked what you thought of the article. I then asked if you discount everything in it even when he cites Englands weather bureau etc. Again, I JUST ASKED. Then I did get side tracked a bit and mentioned a concern about pollution in China, and I said that i thought that globally and individually it would be wise for us to reduce our carbon footprint. And, I did mistakenly say "ozone layer" instead of "atmosphere."
In the process, I have pissed people off for not reading their posts (on work time). I have had it explained to me that i pretty much don't know anything and just believe what I am told. My religion has been brought into the conversation, and we've had posts like this...
Charger made my point DTR. If your not going to read the damn information you ask for and keep asking the same questions with the answer just above on the same page or whatever, how the fuck can we have a conversation? This is the point when when the people who want the "truth" point out the fact your not reading the post that answers your questions. then you'll say a few more ignorant things and ask the questions all over again. At that point, we lose respect for what you have to say in this thread and treat you like the idiot your acting like. With all due respect, and love of course.
So, all the bitching and complaining you've done about people being mean and the reason some are mean are playing out in this thread. It's a perfect example of why folks are not respected in some threads and are spoken to in a harsh tone.
Read the articles Charger posted. They answer your questions. then you won't be asking the same crappy questions over and over again. This isn't as hard as your making it. You have a preconceived idea that we're being mean to you yet you ignore the damn info you ask for. Stratman did the same thing, by the way. Never read shit. just kept flapping that big mouth and ignoring the facts and evidence presented to him. Hell, you don't even have to search the net to get the answers you want, Charger did it for you.
Now I'm calling your bluff. State what side of the Global warming coin your on. Science, facts and evidence.... or made up half truths to further a agenda/bullshit. If your going to be involved in this debate, state your case dude. Cause your not making sense.
I foolishly didn't expect this reaction when I had NEVER stated what my position was, I just asked yours. I think i get it. I still have never stated my position on global warming. From the posts above, you'd think I had stated it then stood toe to toe arguing it for about 10 posts. Give me a chance to read the damn posts before you decide you are qualified to read my mind and argue with what I think, even though it's never been stated ;D
If your going to start a thread/debate about global warming, or said thread progresses into a debate, it's your responsibility to state your position and support that with evidence, studies, and facts. Until then, I'm forced to assume your position by what you say. I'm also completely justified to dismiss your stance, what you say, and lead or follow that conversation to the end.
It would seem to me that once your questions were answered by charger, links to very good articles that took him time and thought to produce, you wouldn't continue to post about that subject until you read Chargers post and the articles he gave you. Once you post after Chargers link, i would assume you've read the articles and ignored them.
I still don't think you've read them.
I do feel I'm qualified to read your mind and argue my stance based on those thoughts.
Your waist deep in Stratmanism. He use to argue in a thread for days and always claimed he hadn't stated what side he was on. This isn't new.
By the way, if you ignore articles, answers to your questions, and keep posting, one would have to come to the conclusion that you don't have anymore intelligence after the articles were posted than you did before they were posted. Therefore, I have read the articles and feel I have more knowledge about this subject than you at this time.