Coffeehouse Thread

174 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Slip Sliding Away--The Joys of Global Cooling

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    cbae

    Give it up.

  • User profile image
    dbonilla77

    yup,

    global warming = colder climate. . where I live last year in February we hit the coldest temperature ever recorded. Granted -8 degrees isn't that cold compared to other parts of the country. But considering average temp in winter is 10 - 20 degrees with little variation. And this year is very warm. I'm starting to think the government is using some kind of weather manipulation. Heck, china admitted to keeping clear skies for the Olympics, if they have technology like that I'm sure we do.

  • User profile image
    kadosho

    Come to think of it, here in the southwest the moon has been in hiding. It mostly shines very late in the evening to mid-morning. As of late, the temps drop so fast after 5pm. Its best to have a light jacket just in case. Perhaps the planet's shift is changing, so its not just the weather alone. But the environment is also shifting.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    or, maybe, just maybe, burning vast quantities of coal, oil, and natural gas is putting millions of years of captured carbon back into the atmosphere in a very, short time.

    If I farted, and the room suddenly smelt awful, would you believe me if I tried to claim the two had nothing to do with each other? 

  • User profile image
    bryanedds

    Four facts and a few questions -

    1) The basis of good science is skepticism and dissent.

    2) The AGW community systematically disallows for skepticism and dissent.

    3) Pretty much only the AGW view is supported with government funding.

    4) There is no freedom that AGW cannot be used to repress.

    In light of this, I wonder how I can consider current AGW claims as 'scientific'. Skeptical views are either barely funded in comparison or otherwise repressed. What would Galileo think of this?

    Since AGW could be (and is being) weaponized against individual freedom, I would not surprised that it's why governments are so anxious to promote it exclusively. Nor would I be surprised that it's why they are financially starving out skeptical and dissenting scientists. What would Jefferson think of this?

    It doesn't seem like real science to me. When science gets politicized, it goes back to the Dark Ages. People with sufficient objectivity can't ignore when that happens. I would not be surprised if the AGW community's current tactics backfire against the people who remain objective. Would they?

    An individualist is he who is saving himself from all those who are saving the world.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @bryanedds: hear! hear!

    well said,..

    and with that,..

    I back away,..

    s l o w l y

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    @bryanedds:The AGW skeptic claim that they aren't allowed to dissent is disproven by the fact that they do, in fact, dissent.

    Just because nobody's buying your BS doesn't mean you aren't allowed to speak it.  We're just not going to ignore outright fiction or blatant fallacies when we see them.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    Oh, yeah, and anyone who uses the phrase 'weaponized against individual freedom' isn't arguing climate change, they're arguing politics.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @ScanIAm: Since when is change not normal? We live in a relatively mild climate, compared to some agressive changes we've had in the past.

    And kind sir, calling the views of other people BS is not a constructive way to convince them.

    The whole issue IS politics, it certainly isnt science.

    We'll see how this carbon trade war the EU has began against the rest of the world is going to bankrupt us even further. I still think the reason the EU is in this bloody mess is this whole 'alternative energy' business,. It's a money sinkhole.

  • User profile image
    bryanedds

    , ScanIAm wrote

    Oh, yeah, and anyone who uses the phrase 'weaponized against individual freedom' isn't arguing climate change, they're arguing politics.

    It is not political to say that politics influence things. It is merely a sad fact of life, and must be accounted for. I think you're too quick to dismiss things that don't uphold your current beliefs. This is known as 'scientific bias'.

    But anyways, here's just a tiny taste from a cursory search -

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html

    Politics is relevant as it provides the undercurrent to the discussion. It is in fact the main source of climate change funding. It seems the AGW camp would rather hide these realities away. Why?

    Why is open discussion about funding sources so anathema in this particular debate? Why are skeptical and objective researchers made to feel like they're talking to the Spanish Inquisition? Whoever disagrees is sure to face demonization (being compared to a holocaust 'denialist'), personal attacks (being accused of dishonest intentions), and even threats of personal harm. This is anything but scientific.

    I don't care what side of the debate you fall on, the chicanery at play should be painfully apparent. Science is all about method, and the AGW methods are politically compromised. Until we all accept this elephant is in the living room, the debate will almost certainly not move forward.

    An individualist is he who is saving himself from all those who are saving the world.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    bryanedds

    How to prove the world is flat, the AGW way -

    1. Grant researchers a billion dollars a year to 'study it'.
    2. Systematically deprive funding from the dissenting researchers.
    3. Receive an equivalent amount of evidence that the world is flat as there exists for AGW.

    The effective government monopoly on climate science is such a compromising force that it's hard to believe there are those who deny its relevance.

    But who could possibly oppose government funding of science? Oh my head is spinning! This is not what they taught me in the government's school system! I must contort my perceptions to stop from having to rethink everything!!!

    Phew. Just in time. I wonder what's on TV?

    An individualist is he who is saving himself from all those who are saving the world.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    cbae

    , bryanedds wrote

    How to prove the world is flat, the AGW way -

    1. Grant researchers a billion dollars a year to 'study it'.
    2. Systematically deprive funding from the dissenting researchers.
    3. Receive an equivalent amount of evidence that the world is flat as there exists for AGW.

    The effective government monopoly on climate science is such a compromising force that it's hard to believe there are those who deny its relevance.

    But who could possibly oppose government funding of science? Oh my head is spinning! This is not what they taught me in the government's school system! I must contort my perceptions to stop from having to rethink everything!!!

    Phew. Just in time. I wonder what's on TV?

    Governments spend money on climate science because it's in the best interests of humanity. Trying to prove AGW false is in the best interests of companies peddling fossil fuels. I'd rather have my tax money spent on the former.

    And, dude, take off the tinfoil hat.

     

     

  • User profile image
    Dr Herbie

    , ScanIAm wrote

    Oh, yeah, and anyone who uses the phrase 'weaponized against individual freedom' isn't arguing climate change, they're arguing politics.

    +1

    Plus your signature: "An individual is he who is saving himself from all those who are saving the world.".  This indicates that you are simply against any perceived threat to your apparent freedom, rather than concerned with the actual science of the situation.

    Anti-climate change science get reduced funding for the same reasons that homoeopathy gets little funding fro government:  there simply isn't enough money to fund everything, so they go with the overall consensus. In an ideal world, I would like to see everything funded, but the world is far from ideal so I'm happy with the pragmatic approach.

    Herbie

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Dr Herbie: But is it wise to fund concensus?

    All you get is more concensus, because that is what you are paying for. So it's wasted money, you get with what you've started out with.

    If you want to understand something, look it from all angles, it will provide you with more insight. Think outside the box!

  • User profile image
    Dr Herbie

    @Maddus Mattus: The funding for climate research started in the 1960s, when it was a remote corner of the scientific community.  At that point is didn't receive much funding.  As time went on this underfunded group started to arrive at a general consensus that there was something going on in the atmosphere and that human activity might have something to do with it.  As the message from these studies started to trickle through to the government, a mere 30 years later ( Perplexed ) they started to get more funding.

    This hasn't been a snap decision for science, this has been a slowly growing realisation that there is a serious possibility that something is wrong. Just because you only started to hear about it this century doesn't mean that work wasn't going on since before we were both born.

    The consensus was reached before the funding started to flow.

    As I said, in an ideal world everyone would get funding, but there just isn't enough money to go around, so we have to play the odds and be pragmatic.  I would like to see some money go to those trying to claim that human activity is nothing to do with it, and I expect that some money is going to them.  I doubt any claims that no government funding is going to those people.

    Herbie

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Dr Herbie: My original point still stands. All you get is more concensus and that is meaningless. We need new fresh ideas, not 50 year old hocum!

    We don't have to be pragmatic, we just have to look into the return on investment. Big grant money, but little new facts, waste of investment. Little grant money, lots of new facts, good investment.

    in an ideal world everyone would get funding

    I don't like the idea that government gets to decide who is wrong and wright in science. By controlling the money they have that power. It's the goverments job to treat everybody the same, regardless of their views or beliefs, so yes equal money should be allotted to all kinds of differnt scientific opinions, cut the CO2 gravy train in half.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @Dr Herbie: My original point still stands. All you get is more concensus and that is meaningless. We need new fresh ideas, not 50 year old hocum!

    We don't have to be pragmatic, we just have to look into the return on investment. Big grant money, but little new facts, waste of investment. Little grant money, lots of new facts, good investment.

    There's scientific consensus that AGW is real. There's not scientific consensus on the degree of impact it will have. And there's certainly not scientific consensus on how to reverse AGW.

    I don't like the idea that government gets to decide who is wrong and wright in science. By controlling the money they have that power. It's the goverments job to treat everybody the same, regardless of their views or beliefs, so yes equal money should be allotted to all kinds of differnt scientific opinions, cut the CO2 gravy train in half.

    The scientists decide what is right and wrong. The governments back the scientists. The only reason money is even in the equation at all is because of the vast amounts of money companies make by peddling fossil fuels.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    There's scientific consensus that AGW is real.

    That doesnt mean they are right. Often the concensus view is wrong. On very rare occasions the concensus view is right, but I don't think AGW is one of them.

    The governments back the scientists.

    It's the other way around I am afraid, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

    The only reason money is even in the equation at all is because of the vast amounts of money companies make by peddling fossil fuels.

    Ofcourse companies are making huge amounts of money on fossil fuels. Nearly everything requires fossil fuels! From the food you eat, to this forum you see here before you, if it wasnt for fossil fuels none of it would be here.

    Before we had fossil fuels, we've used horses, that was not very pretty. Even back then you had scientists tell you that if we would continue like that, the horse dung would pile up to ten feet. Why do people always buy into that end of the world crap? It's the same old story over and over and over. You are bad, but if you pay me for your sins, you are good and go to heaven,..

    wake up!

    But guess what, we moved on from horse power. Not because we ran out of horses, but because we found something better, coal! And that's how it shall be with the other fossil fuels, we will have moved along long before we will run out (in a couple of hundred years). And one last prediction is that it will not be solar, tidal or wind that brings the next revolution.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.