AP Style Guide Change
Locked
12345
12345
 
|
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Matt's come backs to my facts are always some from some dubious source yet he touts victory. He bought the party line that the oil industry is spending big here. No one can out spend the US Govt on anything and the Govt is clearly out get scientific studies to support their political position on this issue. Mind you I have said many times we need to support conservation measures to use less energy and product less pollution. But the demonization of CO2 is not fully thought-out or proven and increased temps and C02 actually in many ways is better for humanity with better crop yield and longer growing seasons. Not saying that is happening just that it would. Scotty sometimes sounds like he supports starving the poor in developing countries to support this screwed up value system that values endangered frogs and wind mills over people.
if You French Fry when you should Pizza you are going to have a bad time
|
|
|
In reply to this post by MC2 5678F589
http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html
here is a good summary of how Obama forced Nasa to change the historical data to make it seem like its warmer now. I also very much like this writers reason for the real cause of what did cause warming in the 1930's and how that can be used today reforestation. I found this in 30 seconds in a Google search. It would have been 5 secs but it seems the liberal blogosphere has taken to filling up this search term with refuting this stuff and knocking it down on Google's search results. Who do you think is paying for all that? Paging Mr Soros. Once you get thru the liberal bull purposely managed to be on the top of the search results the truth is there in the form of hundreds of articles about the falsification of the climate data.
if You French Fry when you should Pizza you are going to have a bad time
|
|
Haven't read this yet, but perhaps you are filtering out the true stories because they don't fit in to your predetermined narrative? I mean, if you have to pick one item that works out of a list of ones that go against your ideas, isn't it possible that the other ones might be the truth and the one that you found might be false? I mean, blame George Soros if you want, but why not read the articles that offer a response and see if the response seems reasonable? Okay, now I'll read the articles, and the responses, and see for myself. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Z
No I didn't. See my response on the last page and pay attention to what I've been saying. When you're talking about 3% of the world's climate scientists who deny the scientific fact of global climate change, the oil industry doesn't have to spend much, but those climate denying scientists can make out like bandits. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Z
Here's the Wikipedia entry on the site Coach just linked to:
And he says I use biased sites!!! And, obviously the "NASA and NOAA cooked the Climate Change numbers" is bullshit, too: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/ Please stop, Coach. I didn't have the highest opinion of your analytical and researching abilities before, but this line of denial isn't reflecting well on you. |
|
In reply to this post by MC2 5678F589
Once again Matt, you use your liberal bias to fog your view of the truth. If you even bother to read what was posted. The bulk of the "denier" money is being used for lobbying and advertisement, not on anti-global warming research so once again you failed in your calculus. The field of environmental & earth science is highly competitive, filled with researcher who couldn't make it in math and physics, much like you I suspect. Would a researcher buck the 97% - hell no, not if he knows which side his bread is buttered. Since the dawn of mankind, scientist who buck the mainstream many times find themselves starving. It's much easier to go with the flow. Even poor Einstein had trouble getting his theories accepted and had to wait it out in the patent office and fortunately he did. But he could have taken an easier road and supported the scientific dogma of the day - just as you seem to. I would imagine that if you lived in the time of Copernicus you would have labeled him a crackpot because he looked to understand the whole truth and not just a part of the truth that fit the dogma of the time.
Don't ski the trees, ski the spaces between the trees.
|
|
|
Looks like I've won the argument because now you've given up trying to offer facts and logic and are now resorting to personal attacks (if I couldn't make it into climate science, why did Duke offer me the chance to do Climate research on a boat in the North Atlantic as part of a grad school package?), and stupid asides. Copernicus and Einstein's ideas were ahead of their time, and built on the ideas of those who came before them (Copernicus didn't invent the heliocentric model, the ancient Greeks beat him to that). That's not what we're talking about here. The appropriate analogy is someone claiming evolution doesn't exist or plate tectonics don't exist. It's someone seeing a bunch of data and saying "Nah, probably all rigged" and going out in his own direction. That's the opposite of what Einstein and Copernicus did. And, being a scientist, if the data change, I'll change my thinking. Maybe the Minlankovich cycles will be stronger than the CO2 effect. Maybe phytoplankton blooms will act as carbon sinks. Who knows? But denying the present day reality of Climate Change is something that relegates you to that category of Chem Trail conspiracy theorists and antivaxers - just plain wrong. |
|
natural news hahhaha
|
|
|
In reply to this post by MC2 5678F589
And as always - you fail to read again. You asked why a scientist would fudge the data and support the mainstream and I gave you examples why - but in your liberal fog you just didn't read that. You accuse me of denying that the climate is changing but again you failed to read what I said - again, liberal fog. Whenever someone doesn't follow the dogma you just insert your own words into what was said and try to make an argument out of it. People fudge data - get over it, researchers follow the money, get over it. I gave you hard facts on where the research dollars are but in you liberal fog you can't accept it. I cited credible sources but that did not support your dogma and you can't accept it, your response reminds me of George Bush - "Mission Accomplished". You keep repeating it over and over to yourself and others and just like the Bush, maybe someone will finally believe it. That someone won't be me. But - hay, maybe the republicans will hire you, you seem to be employing their tactics.
Don't ski the trees, ski the spaces between the trees.
|
|
In reply to this post by ml242
Hey I viewed a quality presentation on how to lift saggy skin |
|
|
In reply to this post by PeeTex
"Because there's money in it", which I disputed in many different ways in my previous post, go back and read it. And "because it goes against current scientific dogma" - which, to a real scientist, is a challenge. Any lead author or other author or any contributor of a scientific paper on climate change would have incentives to find for it to NOT be true. They'd be showered in media attention from Fox News, and mankind as a species would be better off. The small amounts of grant money available for global warming research pales in comparison to that incentive. So, you do believe climate is changing, but you don't think it's caused by human activity? Or you think it is caused by human activity, but you don't think that we should do anything? Yes, now I'm confused. What is your position? Okay, but that didn't happen in this instance and to suggest otherwise is a lie. If your position is so strong, you wouldn't have to lie to convince people of it. Yep, and like I said, the money is on the other side. Okay, but why didn't you respond to my points? Specifically, 1. If climate scientists all over the world are falsifying data to continue the funding of climate research, why? To what end? Don't you think more of these scientists would come out against this research if it was wrong? Notice you don't see many scientists coming out against evolution either. Is that a coincidence? 2. If they're only doing it for monetary reasons, why didn't they choose to focus on Pharmaceutical Research or Department of Defense Research, which is clearly more lucrative? Or why didn't they just go into investment banking, if they're just trying to make money? 3. Of the research projects I listed in my posts (that makes up the $2.7 Billion that we spend on climate research), which research should we cut? NASA's sensors in the upper atmosphere? The DOE's field research in the North and South Poles? If we should cut the research, why? Because we already know the world is warming and no more research is needed? Or because we want to punish those evil climate scientists for doing their job for the last 20 years? Is this just another front in your war against research (after previously trying to take all research dollars away from expensive schools like Harvard)? I accepted your source, and then used your very source to point out where all the money was going. Acting like I didn't accept it is another lie, and again, why lie if the truth is on your side? Ummmmm... Not sure what you're referring to. I respond to your BS and Coach's BS every time with new information or arguments that I restate because you seem not to be able to respond to them. You however, have personally attacked me, lied repeatedly, and adopted the most condescending tone I could imagine, even though you're obviously dealing with someone who knows way more about this topic than you do. I've never met you, PeeTex, but I hope you're more charming in person than this grumpy asshole persona you've adopted on discussions here. Otherwise, life must be really sad for you. |
|
|
Matt
Like I said I spent 30 secs to find something you said didn't exist. You didn't like the source which it seems you spent lots of time researching but did you bother to read the material. Those graphs are from nasa and they are different after Obama told NASA what he wanted to hear. The same info was widely reported in other sources. Unlike you I have better things to do than spend hours researching this looking for sources for you to not bother to read and then spout liberal dogma. Again you not are listening. I do believe that man is having and effect on our world. What I disagree with is that carbon is specifically to blame. Go look at the Google search for this https://www.google.com/#q=climate+scientists+falsify+data The top search results are professional .org liberal politically run sites created specifically to bash those looking for facts. It's a lame ass political tactic that is guerrilla marketing like selling candy on a search done for weight watchers
if You French Fry when you should Pizza you are going to have a bad time
|
|
|
In reply to this post by MC2 5678F589
Also, I'm a contrarian by nature. One of the reasons I know so much about man made climate change is because I wanted it to be false. I wanted to find natural geologic and planetary cycles to blame it on. But I couldn't. I did a lot of research into this and, as I said, nearly went to grad school at Duke to study it. We should be in a period of cooling right now, but we're warming faster than any time in recorded history. It's not good, and Bernie Sanders is right that it's the most pressing national security issue of our time. A lot of people live at or below sea level.
I don't understand why people, especially skiers, want to deny climate change and act like it's not happening. |
|
|
Because if you are right there is bupkus the US as a small portion of the population can do to stop it. You think people in India give a dam about this issue when they are so poor they live in cardboard huts and they are building coil plants like crazy over there. As I mentioned warmer temps and co2 = more food so war,I got is a good thing to them. You guys are going to destroy our economy and have little impact.
If im right you still will destroy our economy over a theory you can't prove and have zero impact
if You French Fry when you should Pizza you are going to have a bad time
|
|
|
In reply to this post by MC2 5678F589
I don't think you have found a single one of us who denies climate change - your still making stuff up. You ask why a climate scientist would do research in an area where there is less money than in an area that has more money, that's a stupid question - ask yourself why a plumber doesn't wake up one day and got to work as a Physician, because they are not qualified, have no previous experience that would lead someone to hand them a grant, haven't published on the topics... Am I a grumpy old white guy - possibly, been working a lot lately and not enjoying "retirement", but mostly I am just enjoying watching you guys squirm when people mention that all the facts are not getting out, for example - you never hear about those glaciers that are expanding, the increase in artic ice in the south pole, etc. It doesn't support the dogma.
Don't ski the trees, ski the spaces between the trees.
|
|
|
Pretty sure Coach doesn't think it's happening So people get into climate science because they're honest people who want to know about the world AND THEN 97% of them falsify data and cover up the REAL TRUTH because they want to get their hands on that sweet government research money? That seems even less likely than "they go into it for the money". Is any other industry you know like that? Like, do car mechanics get out of mechanic school and then immediately decide to grow away everything they've learned about car maintenance and just start beating on people's engines with hammers? And it's up to that brave 3% of car mechanics to stand up to that corrupt 97%? People in science learn the scientific method, they learn about data, they know they can't falsify it because experiments have to be repeatable. Still can't figure out why you believe it's a vast conspiracy, when it would be in their interest to discover global warming is not happening. That does support it, though. Ocean currents around Antarctica create a heat sink that would increase glacial mass at the southern end of the world (that's why you always see glacial loss at the North Pole as the indicator and not the south). A similar current would set up over the North Pole, but Greenland blocks it, so the current moves back south instead of going around. Why act like that's a huge point against climate change when it actually fits right in? It's like someone saying to Darwin, no, those red assed baboons don't look anything like us so we can't be related to them. Okay, well the chimps look more like us because we're more closely related to them, but the red assed baboons fit in, too. |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by PeeTex
My issue is on the destruction of our economy thing. There doesn't seem to be much concern about the 3 trillion we flushed killing a few bad guys and hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq. Why aren't you mad about that? How would you feel if half a trillion of that had been redirected to alternative energy?
Let's assume that both spending projects, the war and alternative energy: • Address a problem that doesn't exist • Generate nothing positive for the future Both projects create some economic activity, jobs for those employed, profits for the companies favored. IMO you should be more mad about the war. It war creates a shitload of ongoing cost - environmental destruction way beyond the production of Chinese solar panels, infrastructure degradation that hurts the world economy, health costs in the US and abroad, and the big one ISIS. (All of this ignores the morality of killing people who never did anything wrong.) Is the economy more or less or equally destroyed by redirecting 20% of the defense budget to alternative/clean energy initiatives?
"You just need to go at that shit wide open, hang on, and own it." —Camp
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Z
Here's another article from that liberal rag, Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-07/india-tells-coal-power-plants-to-subsidize-15-gigawatts-of-solar India has a lot of incentive to stop Global warming because a lot of its land area is at sea level. With indoor farming methods, hydroponics, urban gardens, and increased efficiency, a warmup in the planet won't matter by the time it really kicks in (we'll have bigger problems). You keep bringing up this point, but it never makes any sense. Think about what you're saying: We should pollute the atmosphere and warm the planet so that farming works better? How are those farmers in California doing? What about the farmers in Syria? Can't prove?!?! Have you not been paying attention at all?!? And it's not destroying the economy. Solar is huge right now (in case you haven't noticed). Tesla is the best car company (and soon, the best battery company). Wind power is expanding greatly. Efficiency is big business. It's not wrecking the economy at all - it's allowing an economic expansion while also decreasing emissions. Here's another story from the liberal rag, Forbes:http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomzeller/2015/03/13/in-historic-turn-co2-emissions-flatline-in-2014-evan-as-global-economy-grows/ Here's the headline: If I'm wrong, we leave the planet in okay shape for future generations, if you're wrong, they won't be skiing (and that will be the least of their concerns). |
|
|
Gotta go to work now, but can't wait to check out your replies later. You guys are really doing a great job arguing that global warming is a conspiracy and fuck it, we shouldn't do anything about it even if it isn't.
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Harvey
Why is it when you make a valid point to a dem they come back "You guys started Iraq" which has nothing to do with the topic at hand? Yes Bush screwed the pooch over that one.
It's not all about govt spending here it's really the regulations and taxing. Cap and trade would have little impact becuase China and India aren't stupid enough to do it and it would destroy our economy moving more jobs to the countries that don't do it. The unconstitutional executive over reach of the EPA has to stop. Nice job from the EPA destroying that river with thier incompetence by the way.
if You French Fry when you should Pizza you are going to have a bad time
|
«
Return to Off Topic
|
1 view|%1 views