AP Style Guide Change

Harvey wrote

  Why aren't you mad about that?  How would you feel if half a trillion of that had been redirected to alternative energy?

Wow - that was a big assumption on your part and completely wrong. I am mad as hell about that. The night we were first dropping bombs in Iraq I was screaming at the TV yelling "You dumb fucks!" while most of the US was saying "Bring it on". I didn't believe the data then because I knew the departments that made it up. Should we have spent that money elsewhere, no - we didn't have the money in the first place so we should not have spent anything. Oh - and if we hadn't spent the money we would have not burned all that jet fuel, produced all those weapons which created industrial wastes as well as the impact of exploding them. I suspect it was the WMD lies that really convinced me that you have to question the unquestionable dogma of the time and fight like hell to get the whole truth out no matter which side is cooking the data.

Bill Gates is a believer too!

‘We Need an Energy Miracle’
Bill Gates has committed his fortune to moving the world beyond fossil fuels and mitigating climate change.

I was actually replying to Coach. When someone slips in a reply in between the forum adds in "in reply to" to your post, even if that's not what you were doing.

Coach: I bring up Iraq for a lot of reasons. In this case I brought it up because I see war spending as a bigger threat to our financial stability than spending on clean energy.  I also believe that we could lead the world in clean energy technology and it would actually help our balance of trade and competitive position.

^ gets on Harv for a non sequitur about Iraq, then immediately brings up non sequitur of EPA spill. Quality trolling right there.

From the makers of Axe Body Spray comes: Liberal Fog!Made from a patented, self righteous mixture of Tea Tree Oil, Kale, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's glasses, FDR's ashes and fresh fetal tissue.  It's guaranteed to drive the Weslyan girls wild!

And, coming soon: Conservative Haze!

witch hobble wrote

From the makers of Axe Body Spray comes: Liberal Fog!Made from a patented, self righteous mixture of Tea Tree Oil, Kale, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's glasses, FDR's ashes and fresh fetal tissue.  It's guaranteed to drive the Weslyan girls wild!

And, coming soon: Conservative Haze!

FTW - however for Liberal Fog you forgot the Tofu base, and for the conservative haze, you need some Jet A as an aromatic.

fahz wrote

Bill Gates is a believer too!

‘We Need an Energy Miracle’
Bill Gates has committed his fortune to moving the world beyond fossil fuels and mitigating climate change.

Thanks for posting that article. I am surprised at how aligned I am with Gates' thinking.

PeeTex wrote

fahz wrote

Bill Gates is a believer too!

‘We Need an Energy Miracle’
Bill Gates has committed his fortune to moving the world beyond fossil fuels and mitigating climate change.

Thanks for posting that article. I am surprised at how aligned I am with Gates' thinking.

Than why, earlier in this thread, did you try to act like $20 billion is up for grabs among climate scientists for  global warming research, when most of that money is going to programs almost exactly like the ones Gates is recommending?

I feel like you know better and you're deliberately misleading people. The Ted Cruz method might work on the rubes, but you can't pull that shit on people that are paying attention and actually read the links that people post.

mattchuck2 wrote

Than why, earlier in this thread, did you try to act like $20 billion is up for grabs among climate scientists for  global warming research, when most of that money is going to programs almost exactly like the ones Gates is recommending?

I feel like you know better and you're deliberately misleading people. The Ted Cruz method might work on the rubes, but you can't pull that shit on people that are paying attention and actually read the links that people post.

Stop making shit up Matt, I never said 20B was up for grabs, I said 20B was being spent on climate change topics and about 3B of that was for research in support of the 20B agenda. This was to refute your assertion that there was more money being spent on the campaign to deny climate change of which you had to back peddle on and try to make the argument that it was per researcher.

What I specifically liked in this article was how Gates made the same statements I have made here, electric cars pollute more than conventional cars and Solar can cause more pollution and expense citing the experience in Germany.

Gates seems to be for good science and programs that will make a difference when looked at in the total life cycle and not for the latest liberal fad program that seems cool but actually does more harm than good.

PeeTex wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

 Do you think there's more money in it for a climatologist who supports the theory of man made climate change, or one that opposes it?

You bet there is. The feds are spending over $20B (with a B) on climate change programs and over $3B in direct research in support of this agenda

Seems like you implied that global warming research, specifically, is a cash cow to me, but people can make their own decisions.

And the ONLY way to look at the spending is per researcher. Otherwise, your "scientists falsify and manipulate data for the monetary payoff" attack is even more BS than you initially let on.

Agree that we need efficient ways to build efficient things. But hopefully, those billions that we're spending to research those things gets us there.

mattchuck2 wrote

And the ONLY way to look at the spending is per researcher. Otherwise, your "scientists falsify and manipulate data for the monetary payoff" attack is even more BS than you initially let on.

Keep back peddling.

Would you tell somebody to pursue a career where there was room for one person or room for thousands of people?

You will make up any stupid argument to support a position you were proven wrong on.

You haven't proven anything. Please provide evidence of any claims you've "proven" or any fact that you think you've actually established here.

PeeTex wrote

Would you tell somebody to pursue a career where there was room for one person or room for thousands of people?

PeeTex wrote

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...

Keep digging, buddy. You'll get out of this hole soon...

mattchuck2 wrote

PeeTex wrote

Would you tell somebody to pursue a career where there was room for one person or room for thousands of people?

PeeTex wrote

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...

Keep digging, buddy. You'll get out of this hole soon...

There you go again, taking items out of context to make up silly arguments. I was referring to why a climate scientist does not go to work in a different line of research such as say nuclear physics, they are not qualified. Seems like your trying to bail out that leaky boat and not making much headway.

There you go again, trying to use the Ronald Reagan "there you go again" quote to dismiss valid criticism.

Still waiting on the explanation of how you "proved" me wrong.

And if you don't think that climate change denying scientists, while few in number, can make more money from oil companies and other special interests than climate change supporters who work for the government, you have to explain why you don't think OJ's lawyers (few) made more than public defenders (many), or "wealth psychologists" (few) make more than psychologists who focus their practices on normal people (many).

There's lots of money to be made catering to the interests of the rich and powerful. Oil companies are both.

Hell even Exxon knows!

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

fahz wrote

Hell even Exxon knows!

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

Of course they did... just like the RJ Reynolds knew about lung cancer, and Firestone knew about tread separation, long before this stuff was public knowledge.  As with most things that are infected by the profit motive, the facts don't mean very much.

mattchuck2 wrote

There you go again, trying to use the Ronald Reagan "there you go again" quote to dismiss valid criticism.

Still waiting on the explanation of how you "proved" me wrong.

And there you go again using the Bush Chaney technique of repeating the inaccuracies over and over again in attempt to make them truths. I have already proven you wrong, I don't need to keep doing it over and over again just because you don't accept it. But lets have a little fun, the government is spending 20B on climate change, 2.7B directly on research. Big Industry is spending 200M on anti-climate change and lets just say they spend the same percentage on supporting research as the feds do, well that leaves about 27M for researchers. So using your numbers 3% of the total pool of researchers get 27M while 97% get 2.7B. Well Matt - by your numbers that means that there is 3 times more money per researcher if you are supporting the global warming agenda or do you need help with the math.

mattchuck2 wrote

And if you don't think that climate change denying scientists, while few in number, can make more money from oil companies and other special interests than climate change supporters who work for the government, you have to explain why you don't think OJ's lawyers (few) made more than public defenders (many), or "wealth psychologists" (few) make more than psychologists who focus their practices on normal people (many).

There's lots of money to be made catering to the interests of the rich and powerful. Oil companies are both.

I don't have to explain shit to you and apparently you wouldn't listen anyway. This is just another for your stupid arguments. Do some simple research if you don't think people can get rich working for the government. This I think is the lamest argument you have ever made.

PeeTex wrote

And there you go again using the Bush Chaney technique of repeating the inaccuracies over and over again in attempt to make them truths. I have already proven you wrong, I don't need to keep doing it over and over again just because you don't accept it. But lets have a little fun, the government is spending 20B on climate change, 2.7B directly on research. Big Industry is spending 200M on anti-climate change and lets just say they spend the same percentage on supporting research as the feds do, well that leaves about 27M for researchers. So using your numbers 3% of the total pool of researchers get 27M while 97% get 2.7B. Well Matt - by your numbers that means that there is 3 times more money per researcher if you are supporting the global warming agenda or do you need help with the math.

This doesn't prove anything. Assuming numbers like you are is BS. I could just say something like "And add in the money that X researcher also takes in from the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups." How much money is that? How about $1 Billion a year: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change Is it true? Who knows?!? But fuck it, now it's $2.7 Billion to split among 97 percent of the world's scientists, and $1.027 Million for 3 percent! Fooling people with Math is fun if you just make weird assumptions.

Why don't you get back to me when you have some hard numbers on what Climate change denying scientists make vs. Climate change agreeing scientists. Until then, there's no way to extrapolate what individual scientists make from these ridiculous numbers that include operating budgets, equipment, computer systems, etc. The idea that you're trying to is crazy, I just did it to point out that you weren't taking into account how many people the money is spread around to. Which you obviously weren't.

mattchuck2 wrote

And if you don't think that climate change denying scientists, while few in number, can make more money from oil companies and other special interests than climate change supporters who work for the government, you have to explain why you don't think OJ's lawyers (few) made more than public defenders (many), or "wealth psychologists" (few) make more than psychologists who focus their practices on normal people (many).

There's lots of money to be made catering to the interests of the rich and powerful. Oil companies are both.

I don't have to explain shit to you and apparently you wouldn't listen anyway. This is just another for your stupid arguments. Do some simple research if you don't think people can get rich working for the government. This I think is the lamest argument you have ever made.

When did I say people can't get rich working for the government? Show me, because it doesn't look like I said that at all.

I said there's a lot of money in catering research to the oil industry. Just like there was a lot of money in catering research to Big Tobacco.