U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-13-2013, 02:12 PM
 
85 posts, read 174,683 times
Reputation: 116

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Remember the Marcott paper people were "swooning" over?

I guess Marcott and Mann have a lot in common.

Those who don’t learn from Yamal, are condemned to repeat it – Marcott’s YAD061



Seriously? After all of the garbage they went through with Mann who uses a single tree to weight his research and this comes out doing the same dang thing?

How stupid do you have to be to keep passing this garbage off?
You know that 'uptick' you are so obsessed about is not at all the point of the paper right? As you will know if you've actually read the paper (yeah right), Marcott himself calls the 20th century stack not robust and doesn't base any of his conclusions on it - we already know what happened in the 20th century. He could have left it out and nothing about his conclusions would have changed.

I'm not surprised this is what you're focusing on, because this is the most common tactic by climate deniers; focus on something completely unrelated (and in the process, as you just did, show that you did not understand the actual issue at hand) and use it to try and discredit the author.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 04-13-2013, 03:44 PM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,478,782 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoggyBottoms View Post
You know that 'uptick' you are so obsessed about is not at all the point of the paper right? As you will know if you've actually read the paper (yeah right), Marcott himself calls the 20th century stack not robust and doesn't base any of his conclusions on it - we already know what happened in the 20th century. He could have left it out and nothing about his conclusions would have changed.

I'm not surprised this is what you're focusing on, because this is the most common tactic by climate deniers; focus on something completely unrelated (and in the process, as you just did, show that you did not understand the actual issue at hand) and use it to try and discredit the author.

Sorry, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Next time read the thread there Mr. Wizard rather than searching for your activist key talking points. Denier? Am I then acceptable in calling you a religious fanatic? You going to go on some charade about how the Goddess is endangered and we should sacrifice ourselves to your religious earth god? You going to push red buttons and blow us all up who don't worship your neanderthal religion? Hmm? Or... can we drop the whole BS insulting labels and stick to the science?

Just so you know... that is only 1 problem with his paper, there are many others but I doubt you can spare time to get off your knees as you punch your head to the ground in religious fashion to deal with such. Wouldn't want you to offend your earth god.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Just East of the Southern Portion of the Western Part of PA
1,269 posts, read 3,527,333 times
Reputation: 1507
Climate Change - LOL.

<insert random link related to local weather that proves only ignorance and access to local weather forecasts>

Discuss!
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 05:32 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 7,724,840 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Because it is evident in the points they show concerning the research. Seriously, you can't be this frigging dense?

Here is the problem. You go on and on with your nose up the arse of CAGW researches claiming one thing or another and how they are so great, so smart, and we should accept their claims.

The thing is, as I have been trying to tell you from the start, science is not a process of how far you can shove your head up someones arse. It isn't a process of "who is the coolest guy" or "who has the shiniest name badge". It is a process of verification, validation, and replication. You ask... how can I accept these comments from a "blog"? It is because they take a look at the research, evaluate it and discuss the problems with the methods used. They don't say "OMG look at me I am a guy in a cool white coat and a neat shiny name badge that says expert, believe what I say!", they actually have to evaluate the information, make a case, point out the issues (ie they show their work unlike those you worship, that is you can download everything they provide and then check their own claims if they are pulling data files or verify through public records they use).

That brings me to the final point concerning this. In science, the person proclaiming the hypothesis correct MUST demonstrate its resilience (ie it is correct) in ALL circumstances. It must PASS every evaluation. If it can not be explained why it fails, why a result is "unanswered" then it is... WRONG. This isn't horse shoes and hand grenades were "close enough" is "good enough". One simple fact that conflicts with their assessment can bring down their house of cards. This is why it is called "Science" and not "subjective artful theory". They MUST establish their position through proper means. So when that "blog" evaluates a given assumption they make and points out they are using a single source to make their claim or relying on statistical means to establish their position, it simply means... THEY ARE NOT SURE... and if you are NOT SURE in science, then YOU DON'T KNOW and if you DON'T KNOW, then your conclusions are considered WRONG, GUESSES, PULLING IT OUT OF YOUR ARSE!

You don't know this though... because you have been indoctrinated with the concept that somehow title and position establish validity. You have even been deluded to think there are multiple meanings to basic concepts. That valid can mean something other than what it means. That simply establishes that you need to go back and smack your instructors upside the head for screwing up your education and if it wasn't their fault... well... maybe you need to spend some time questioning your own methods of evaluation in the mirror. Either way, I am tired of teaching the most basic aspects to which anyone with a basic high school education in the sciences understands. Pull your head out of the sand and educate yourself. /boggle
Time and time again I tell you I do not support CAGW. But you just can't listen..... You just see someone disagreeing with you so you just go off on a tangent....

It's pathetically amusing....

Quote:
I am calling BS on this. You don't want to know what is going on. You want the claims being made to line up with your dogma. Countless times in these discussions when you get backed into a corner concerning the science, you go off about the environment, how we need to be this or that, save this or that, conserve, sustain, etc...

BS! You have a goal and climate science propaganda has been your tool. Now, when all the evidence coming out is showing they have been running fast and loose with the actual "evidence", you go on about how "people just want to know". Yeah, they wanted to know so much that they coined insulting terms like denier, Anti-science, Flat earthers, Polluters, Oil Cronies, etc... and attacked, dismissed any discussion on the issue that wasn't kissing the feet of the dogma.

Sorry pal, your "We just want to know..." /innocent look

Is pure back peddling garbage and a joke. Sell it to some idiot who will buy that junk. I will not.
LOLZ. Yes manufacturers and mining companies certainly don't represent trillion dollar industries globally.... I'm sure they would NEVER do anything to promote their own propaganda.... Like Stephen McIntyre who of course never worked for mining companies or never founded and was president of one....

Of course it's everyone on the other side who is doing the wrong.....

Talk about confirmation bias....
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 05:38 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 7,724,840 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
How much do we subsidize oil? Do you have any tangible figures or is this simply another talking point you are passing on?
LOL. Just use google and get your answer..... But if you are lazy then we subsidize approxiamtely:



It comes out to about 38 billion a decade.....
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 05:39 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 7,724,840 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoggyBottoms View Post
You know that 'uptick' you are so obsessed about is not at all the point of the paper right? As you will know if you've actually read the paper (yeah right), Marcott himself calls the 20th century stack not robust and doesn't base any of his conclusions on it - we already know what happened in the 20th century. He could have left it out and nothing about his conclusions would have changed.

I'm not surprised this is what you're focusing on, because this is the most common tactic by climate deniers; focus on something completely unrelated (and in the process, as you just did, show that you did not understand the actual issue at hand) and use it to try and discredit the author.
Don't bother. Nomander, as you can tell, can't answer the question directly, but spout off a bunch of nonsensical ramblings...
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 05:43 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 7,724,840 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I'm not a big fan of this discussion of "new jobs". There is no arguing that creating a market for alternative energy would create new jobs in an absolute sense. But it would also kill many jobs that already exist. Thus, there is no net increase in the number of jobs, just a shift in the types of jobs available.

The question isn't really about whether we can create a sort of false market for alternative energy by heavily subsidizing it. We could create a false market for practically anything if we heavily subsidized it.

The question is really about whether or not alternative energy technology would benefit us overall.

Basically, the only way it would be economically beneficial to subsidize alternative energy technology, is if there was some huge market for alternative energy that the United States could sell into. But the truth is, that market simply doesn't exist. In fact, the largest market for alternative energy in the world, is China. Which we simply aren't going to be beating out on the open market(their labor rates are just too low). The second largest market is the United States. Which it doesn't do us much good to subsidize goods that we buy for ourselves. I mean, why take money from tax-payers, to give to businesses, to make goods for tax-payers to buy. It doesn't produce beneficial results, because one way or another, we still have to pay for it.


The reality is that, if you subsidized alternative energy, the subsidies have to be raised through taxes, which will inevitably cause the prices of everything else to go up. For instance, if we put in cap and trade, the cost of energy would skyrocket, and the cost to manufacture basically anything would also go up sharply. Thus, our manufacturers who are already having a hard time competing on the world market, would have an even more difficult time competing. Thus there is no reason to believe that there would be a net increase in jobs if cap and trade were to go into effect.
As someone else has mentioned and as I have posted above.... Get rid of the fossil fuel subsidies then we'll talk....

But good luck getting the oil patch to give up their free money.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 05:46 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 7,724,840 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Good question.

One has to ask, what purpose does all of these solutions they have implemented or purposed serve?

Even the EPA admits that their regulations will not serve any practical result. What benefit do they gain by destroying a nation while ignoring the fact that other countries are surpassing us greatly in such?

Just like the "evidence" of CAGW, the solutions also lack any practical meaning, but hey... as long as we feel good about ourselves, that is all that matters right?

The more illogical and impractical steps they take to such, the more reasonable the conspiracy theories become concerning these groups. The environment is not the goal... as some say... "Follow the money".

Here is something funny as well. Remember how if we did not sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, we were doomed?

Interesting:

USA meets Kyoto protocol goal – without ever embracing it



Funny, we didn't sign on... but look! we met the conditions. Could be the downturn in the economy that caused it? Wait... I have an idea... lets destroy the US economy to "save the planet".

Far fetched? Maybe... Maybe not.
Yes because destroying the economy is the ONLY way to meet the conditions!

Yay, let's deal only in absolutes!
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-14-2013, 02:29 AM
 
85 posts, read 174,683 times
Reputation: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Sorry, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Next time read the thread there Mr. Wizard rather than searching for your activist key talking points. Denier? Am I then acceptable in calling you a religious fanatic? You going to go on some charade about how the Goddess is endangered and we should sacrifice ourselves to your religious earth god? You going to push red buttons and blow us all up who don't worship your neanderthal religion? Hmm? Or... can we drop the whole BS insulting labels and stick to the science?

Just so you know... that is only 1 problem with his paper, there are many others but I doubt you can spare time to get off your knees as you punch your head to the ground in religious fashion to deal with such. Wouldn't want you to offend your earth god.
And here's what happens when a denier is challenged on one of his talking points that he regurgitated from some blog, folks. How about trying to respond to what I said? I'll give you some time to peruse through your daily blogs to come up with an answer.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-14-2013, 02:46 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,370 posts, read 9,308,990 times
Reputation: 6654
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
LOL. Just use google and get your answer..... But if you are lazy then we subsidize approxiamtely:



It comes out to about 38 billion a decade.....
Yet In 2011 the three oil giants paid more income tax than any other American corporation. ExxonMobil paid $27.3 billion in income tax, Chevron paid $17 billion, and ConocoPhillips paid $10.6 billion.

That $38B over ten years returns more than $1T in income tax. Totally different results than the $28B lost on green energy subsidies (gambling) over the last 4 years.

Drill baby drill!
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:17 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top