Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 02-21-2015, 09:08 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,077 posts, read 10,661,210 times
Reputation: 8793

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Some folks are not worth your time.....
There is always time to condemn denial of reality. If we give ignorance a pass, it just encourages more ignorance.

 
Old 02-21-2015, 09:12 AM
 
2,777 posts, read 1,772,982 times
Reputation: 2418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Beale View Post
The bottom line is there is a disturbing push by our gov't (using taxpayer money) to promote the idea that global warming is occurring. If you go against this (or can't prove GW), no money for you. This is what causes the corruption, the inaccurate aging weather stations to purposely remain this way, the manipulating of temp data, plus any other factor causing higher temp readings that may be unknown to the public, etc etc.

I know, I know, conspiracy theories blah blah blah....no, it's common sense.
That's not what the documents say. All that they say is that studying climate change is something that the NOAA is concerned with, which is true. It's not a secret, it's not something they're trying to hide. These aren't leaked documents that the press has somehow been unable to get a hold of-- they're hosted on the site in plain view. WHY would they put these things on their own site if it was evidence of a massive conspiracy to convince people of something that isn't true?

You're taking an ordinary statement of purpose, mixing it with the fact that in order to exist in a currency-based system, organizations need funding, and pretending it's something sinister.

Seriously, think about what you're saying.

The military wouldn't be receiving as much money if there weren't any wars to fight-- does that mean that war doesn't actually exist? You must be irrational, blind AND stupid if you don't agree with this one.

Is all disease nothing more than a made up story to put money into medicine? If you look past the surface, you will realize this.

Hey what about roads-- maybe roads are a plot to convince people they can't just drive through forests or meadows. It's obvious when you think about it.

Cars are part of a global plot to convince people to be lazy by not running or walking... so they can steal your money while you struggle to get up off your fat ass. Why can't you see this?

And the police only receive money by pretending that crime is a problem. Maximum red pill!

Fires don't actually happen so we don't need the fire department. Open your eyes!

Maybe everything is completely fine and all of civilization is a massive trick to convince people that the natural world isn't full of predation, violence and death and we don't actually need agriculture, buildings, electricity or language!!! Come on, this isn't complicated... even a liberal can see my point.

Last edited by Spatula City; 02-21-2015 at 09:26 AM..
 
Old 02-21-2015, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Ohio
2,801 posts, read 2,298,516 times
Reputation: 1654
I have not read all the posts but I believe this thread is another that PROVES more people need to take a few classes on Environmental Science .. or you can do the research and study on your own.
 
Old 02-21-2015, 10:20 AM
 
519 posts, read 595,033 times
Reputation: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City View Post
That's not what the documents say. All that they say is that studying climate change is something that the NOAA is concerned with, which is true. It's not a secret, it's not something they're trying to hide. These aren't leaked documents that the press has somehow been unable to get a hold of-- they're hosted on the site in plain view. WHY would they put these things on their own site if it was evidence of a massive conspiracy to convince people of something that isn't true?

You're taking an ordinary statement of purpose, mixing it with the fact that in order to exist in a currency-based system, organizations need funding, and pretending it's something sinister.

Seriously, think about what you're saying.

The military wouldn't be receiving as much money if there weren't any wars to fight-- does that mean that war doesn't actually exist? You must be irrational, blind AND stupid if you don't agree with this one.

Is all disease nothing more than a made up story to put money into medicine? If you look past the surface, you will realize this.

Hey what about roads-- maybe roads are a plot to convince people they can't just drive through forests or meadows. It's obvious when you think about it.

Cars are part of a global plot to convince people to be lazy by not running or walking... so they can steal your money while you struggle to get up off your fat ass. Why can't you see this?

And the police only receive money by pretending that crime is a problem. Maximum red pill!

Fires don't actually happen so we don't need the fire department. Open your eyes!

Maybe everything is completely fine and all of civilization is a massive trick to convince people that the natural world isn't full of predation, violence and death and we don't actually need agriculture, buildings, electricity or language!!! Come on, this isn't complicated... even a liberal can see my point.
You've gone off on a massive irrelevant tangent.

the parts of the "strategic plan" that you omitted from my post clearly tell a different story:
We need to encourage global warming

And to relate how one of your strange examples applies to AGW- there was a scandal years ago here where I live. The county police "lost"/misplaced/did not file hundreds of crime reports over several years. This made crime stats appear lower. But when budget cuts are on the table and the PD received some of the cutbacks and was on the future chopping block, you could be sure 100% of the police reports were properly filed and crime spiked (or appeared to spike). If you don't believe stuff like this happens, then you're blind AND stupid AND naive.
 
Old 02-21-2015, 10:40 AM
 
3,792 posts, read 2,369,671 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Really? Doesn't it just sort of make you sad and frustrated? Like the anti-vaccination bunch?

I don't get denialists. Nothing in my education ever led me to believe "I think I'll just pretend the science isn't real" is the way to go.
Please stay on topic. The topic of this thread is warming in a good idea and we need more of it. So they aren't denying warming per se.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Or maybe it's the slavish devotion to the Party. I don't get that either. If people like Palin and Bachmann and Inhofe don't make people give their heads a shake and say "Waitaminit, these people are idiots!" what will?
read the next one for some insight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
then did it ever occur to you that perhaps we are not yet ready to start towards a period of glaciation yet?
Or try this one. The start of the industrial revolution averted the next one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post



or a major one.
see above.
 
Old 02-21-2015, 10:48 AM
 
2,777 posts, read 1,772,982 times
Reputation: 2418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Beale View Post
You've gone off on a massive irrelevant tangent.

the parts of the "strategic plan" that you omitted from my post clearly tell a different story:
We need to encourage global warming

And to relate how one of your strange examples applies to AGW- there was a scandal years ago here where I live. The county police "lost" hundreds of crime reports over several years. This made crime stats appear lower. But when budget cuts are on the table and the PD received some of the cutbacks and was on the future chopping block, you could be sure 100% of the police reports were properly filed and crime spiked (or appeared to spike). If you don't believe stuff like this happens, then you're blind AND stupid AND naive.
It wasn't irrelevant, and you would know this if you were actually willing to think about what you're saying.

By attacking these easily accessible funding documents as evidence of a conspiracy, you are essentially arguing that any time that anyone or anything receives money from the government, it's probably because they're lying. That was the point of my 'irrelevant' tangent-- to show you that your argument is utterly ridiculous.

A 'strategic plan' isn't some sinister attempt to deceive everyone, it's an attempt to address a legitimate issue. Your entire conspiracy depends upon people simply agreeing with you that AGW doesn't exist or isn't worth addressing, therefore no money should ever be spent on it simply because you and other people who haven't got a clue say so.

And then you start saying that since some county police found some missing crime reports when it came time to report their budget (which seems like the time such an issue is most likely to be discovered), not only are those police officers obviously corrupt and lying, but ALL human beings in every government-related project in every single country all around the world are also corrupt and lying.

Don't you think that there might be some small chance that is being studied because the majority of legitimate scientific organizations have gathered evidence that it is actually happening?
 
Old 02-21-2015, 11:08 AM
 
519 posts, read 595,033 times
Reputation: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City View Post
It wasn't irrelevant, and you would know this if you were actually willing to think about what you're saying.

By attacking these easily accessible funding documents as evidence of a conspiracy, you are essentially arguing that any time that anyone or anything receives money from the government, it's probably because they're lying. That was the point of my 'irrelevant' tangent-- to show you that your argument is utterly ridiculous.

A 'strategic plan' isn't some sinister attempt to deceive everyone, it's an attempt to address a legitimate issue. Your entire conspiracy depends upon people simply agreeing with you that AGW doesn't exist or isn't worth addressing, therefore no money should ever be spent on it simply because you and other people who haven't got a clue say so.

And then you start saying that since some county police found some missing crime reports when it came time to report their budget (which seems like the time such an issue is most likely to be discovered), not only are those police officers obviously corrupt and lying, but ALL human beings in every government-related project in every single country all around the world are also corrupt and lying.

Don't you think that there might be some small chance that is being studied because the majority of legitimate scientific organizations have gathered evidence that it is actually happening?
Why do you consistently blow the realists argument into something it isn't? Who said every government-related project in every single country is corrupt? The point of using YOUR example on crime is the stats can be manipulated for greed. All the public saw was a graph showing a huge jump in crime after certain cuts were implemented. Did crime really increase? The same way the temp stats can be manipulated to save peoples jobs. Thousands of jobs rely on AGW/GW and the gov't funding that comes with it. So therefore it must be a problem. If it's not, then billions of dollars are lost every year. Is it really that hard to comprehend?
 
Old 02-21-2015, 11:17 AM
 
5,072 posts, read 2,280,836 times
Reputation: 3325
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Precisely rather than deliberate and obtuse self-deception. The childish intention to misunderstand the nature of climate change to rationalize harmful behaviors one want to rationalize protecting has really got to stop.
Your ridiculous belief that you can control the weather has really got to stop. But if you can control the weather, could you put an end to these awful winters in Pittsburgh, please? I'm getting tired of this.
 
Old 02-21-2015, 11:58 AM
 
2,777 posts, read 1,772,982 times
Reputation: 2418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Beale View Post
Why do you consistently blow the realists argument into something it isn't? Who said every government-related project in every single country is corrupt?
Because you're not being realistic.

Once again-- by posting the funding proposal as 'evidence' of a conspiracy, you're jumping to the conclusion that something doesn't exist/isn't a problem simply because money is being dedicated to its study. Or you're just being incoherent and drawing connections that don't exist.

If that's true, then ALL other research funding must also be suspect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Beale View Post
The same way the temp stats can be manipulated to save peoples jobs. Thousands of jobs rely on AGW/GW and the gov't funding that comes with it. So therefore it must be a problem. If it's not, then billions of dollars are lost every year. Is it really that hard to comprehend?
Yes, if the government stopped funding science a LOT of jobs would be lost.

For example:

NIH Budget - About NIH - National Institutes of Health (NIH)
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42410.pdf
Cancer Research Funding - National Cancer Institute

Also, the integrity of science would be completely destroyed.

The thing about government funding is that unlike privately-funded science such as drug research, there is not much profit involved. The researchers might make $100k/year if they're lucky. There is no incentive to make any specific discoveries, except to claim them as your own and bolster your reputation-- and in the process, sharing your discoveries with the human race. This is what motivates the majority of scientists-- the chance to do their job, make discoveries and break down frontiers. They're the kind of people who enjoy exploring and figuring things out. The existence of AGW isn't being debated among legit climate-related scientists because the theory is so strong, but if it went away there are numerous other projects they could study-- it's not like the world has any shortage of ocean-related problems, or like there aren't climate-related discoveries waiting to be unearthed from the past or the future. If there was an Ice Age coming, they could study how to prevent it. If things were steady, they could determine how to best preserve that state without disrupting it. They receive money, but not huge amounts... the only upside is that they get to own their own research.

If these people wanted to make money, they would be working for the oil companies and 'proving' that AGW isn't happening. Such a discovery would be a huge boon to the oil companies, so there are HUGE financial incentives to make such discoveries. This is where Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, and Judith Curry come in. Private interests don't fund projects purely out of a selfless interest in science, they expect to own the research and the fruits of that research, so the researcher loses control of his own research. As a result, anyone involved in the research is only allowed to reveal what the private interest wants them to reveal. Scientists under these conditions don't have the right to talk publicly about anything that contradicts what the oil companies want, but they are paid much higher salaries. If climatologists were truly money-hungry and only interested in themselves, then I guarantee that AGW would not be an issue. This is what big tobacco did with tobacco research, and what drug companies do with drug research.

The reason this completely absurd government funding 'conspiracy' you're mindlessly repeating exists is because certain people WANT to cut government funding for science, so that it can depend exclusively on private funding, so that they can control the results. This is what is happening in Canada under a truly ignorant right-wing PM who thinks oil is the future.

Who pays for science?

Saying that government grants corrupt science is just so unbelievably backwards... it's private funding that corrupts science, and because you're blinded by politics you're willing to listen to and repeat the biggest lies from the biggest liars in the world.

Last edited by Spatula City; 02-21-2015 at 12:33 PM..
 
Old 02-21-2015, 07:23 PM
 
519 posts, read 595,033 times
Reputation: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City View Post
Because you're not being realistic.

Once again-- by posting the funding proposal as 'evidence' of a conspiracy, you're jumping to the conclusion that something doesn't exist/isn't a problem simply because money is being dedicated to its study. Or you're just being incoherent and drawing connections that don't exist.

If that's true, then ALL other research funding must also be suspect.



Yes, if the government stopped funding science a LOT of jobs would be lost.

For example:

NIH Budget - About NIH - National Institutes of Health (NIH)
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42410.pdf
Cancer Research Funding - National Cancer Institute

Also, the integrity of science would be completely destroyed.

The thing about government funding is that unlike privately-funded science such as drug research, there is not much profit involved. The researchers might make $100k/year if they're lucky. There is no incentive to make any specific discoveries, except to claim them as your own and bolster your reputation-- and in the process, sharing your discoveries with the human race. This is what motivates the majority of scientists-- the chance to do their job, make discoveries and break down frontiers. They're the kind of people who enjoy exploring and figuring things out. The existence of AGW isn't being debated among legit climate-related scientists because the theory is so strong, but if it went away there are numerous other projects they could study-- it's not like the world has any shortage of ocean-related problems, or like there aren't climate-related discoveries waiting to be unearthed from the past or the future. If there was an Ice Age coming, they could study how to prevent it. If things were steady, they could determine how to best preserve that state without disrupting it. They receive money, but not huge amounts... the only upside is that they get to own their own research.

If these people wanted to make money, they would be working for the oil companies and 'proving' that AGW isn't happening. Such a discovery would be a huge boon to the oil companies, so there are HUGE financial incentives to make such discoveries. This is where Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, and Judith Curry come in. Private interests don't fund projects purely out of a selfless interest in science, they expect to own the research and the fruits of that research, so the researcher loses control of his own research. As a result, anyone involved in the research is only allowed to reveal what the private interest wants them to reveal. Scientists under these conditions don't have the right to talk publicly about anything that contradicts what the oil companies want, but they are paid much higher salaries. If climatologists were truly money-hungry and only interested in themselves, then I guarantee that AGW would not be an issue. This is what big tobacco did with tobacco research, and what drug companies do with drug research.

The reason this completely absurd government funding 'conspiracy' you're mindlessly repeating exists is because certain people WANT to cut government funding for science, so that it can depend exclusively on private funding, so that they can control the results. This is what is happening in Canada under a truly ignorant right-wing PM who thinks oil is the future.

Who pays for science?

Saying that government grants corrupt science is just so unbelievably backwards... it's private funding that corrupts science, and because you're blinded by politics you're willing to listen to and repeat the biggest lies from the biggest liars in the world.
so all this text to say that the government and the likes of Al Gore couldn't possibly have some other agenda, such as a tax on life itself, and all human activities (and even farm animals)?? Or getting in early on companies that stand to make windfall profits from the carbon tax system? No possible motive there, nope. "Naive" is too kind a word to describe this...
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, 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