Purkake Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) Nuclear power plants are awesome, but even uranium won't last forever. They need to employ all the awesome advances that have been made in solar energy over the last couple of years. You have tons of desert in the states, after all. Also we need a space elevator, so we can do awesome stuff and send nuclear waste into space. Edited November 24, 2009 by Purkake
Lare Kikkeli Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Well, in US we could actually do a lot and benefit economically by building nuclear power plants, but of course the environmentalists won't agree to that either. Edit: As far as who's getting paid, Al Gore for example made millions though his fear mongering and by using his influence to steer "green" projects to companies he owns. So how exactly did Al Gore get the majority of scientists and a large number of 1st world leaders on his side? Bribery? Hypnosis? Skull & Bones/Freemason/Illuminati contacts?
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 24, 2009 Author Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) All of those. Most scientists are left leaning, and most environmentalists are like water melons, green outside, red on the inside. Edit: Scientific fraud helps also, as is the subject of this thread. Edited November 24, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Hurlshort Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 I don't understand the watermelon simile. What does the red inside represent?
Enoch Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) 1) Anytime politics gets this deeply involved in a scientific issue, there are going to be some people (on both sides) who get too emotionally invested in their side and care more about "winnning" the political battle than they do about getting the scientific support correct. 2) Even with this evidence of shady conduct, the vast vast majority of credible science still shows that carbon emissions from human activities do have effects and will result in climatological impact of some degree over the next several decades. And, really, if you're looking for financial incentives to falsify results, Gore's profits from books/movies/speeches, etc., are pocket change compared to the research grants that come from energy companies. With that in mind, I agree with Wals' concerns about the difficulties of creating policy based on the science. It's a cost-benefit question to which the answer is not clear. Edited November 24, 2009 by Enoch
213374U Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Nuclear power plants are awesome, but even uranium won't last forever. Actually, it will. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Flouride Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Scam or no scam. All I have to do is look outside and see that's there's no snow. For 20 years there was always snow in these parts of Finland in early November. Now we get permanent snow cover just before or after Christmas. Whether it's global/local warming or sun acting up it's still cause for corcern. Hate the living, love the dead.
Purkake Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Nuclear power plants are awesome, but even uranium won't last forever. Actually, it will. Cool!
Meshugger Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 This is the first time that i have heard that scientists are pinko-leftists. I must've attended a different university. What the scientists themselves think in this is really of no consequence, since the peer-review will filter out the bad seeds in the long run. What those in power think (politicians, industrialists) is of more importance and since they are the ones manipulating the official agenda, both for egoistic and altruistic reasons. "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy
alanschu Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 I'm curious what the emails refer to with respect to that guy getting "blacklisted." The email said junk science was being allowed simply to promote debate. Though if it's truly "junk science" then...
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 24, 2009 Author Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) What the scientists themselves think in this is really of no consequence, since the peer-review will filter out the bad seeds in the long run. Well, apparently the peer review process for Global Warming is controlled by a small cabal of like minded individuals, who conspired to get rid of anyone in position to challenge them. Several of the leaked e-mails are exactly on this subject. And, really, if you're looking for financial incentives to falsify results, Gore's profits from books/movies/speeches, etc., are pocket change compared to the research grants that come from energy companies. Which will themselves be dwarfed once the politicians get the ability to channel "envromentally friendly" subsidies to their friends. There's a huge business being set up around "Cap and Trade", and everyone who's politically connected is licking their chops in anticipation of the spoils. What exactly is the trick that was used? Something to do with adjusting the data I think, raw data has to be adjusted for other variables to be meanigful. Apparently the raw data which the CRU had claimed disappeared so they wouldn't have to release it has also been leaked, and is being examined now. Edited November 24, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
213374U Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Whether it's global/local warming or sun acting up it's still cause for corcern.A cause for concern, you say? Depends on whom you ask. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
alanschu Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Well, apparently the peer review process for Global Warming is controlled by a small cabal of like minded individuals, who conspired to get rid of anyone in position to challenge them. Several of the leaked e-mails are exactly on this subject. It looked like they refer to a guy that lets "junk science" get to peer review simply to promote debate. What exactly do they mean by "junk science?"
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 24, 2009 Author Posted November 24, 2009 Well, apparently the peer review process for Global Warming is controlled by a small cabal of like minded individuals, who conspired to get rid of anyone in position to challenge them. Several of the leaked e-mails are exactly on this subject. It looked like they refer to a guy that lets "junk science" get to peer review simply to promote debate. What exactly do they mean by "junk science?" Science that doesn't agree with their position. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
213374U Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) n/m Edited November 24, 2009 by 213374U - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Lare Kikkeli Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Wait so let me get this straight...The majority of scientists are greenwashed pinkos and thus not reliable, and also science doesn't agree with their position. Since the scientists are all wrong where does the science that disagrees with the scientists position come from? From other scientists holding the opposite view? Young earth creationists? Petrol companies?
alanschu Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) Well, apparently the peer review process for Global Warming is controlled by a small cabal of like minded individuals, who conspired to get rid of anyone in position to challenge them. Several of the leaked e-mails are exactly on this subject. It looked like they refer to a guy that lets "junk science" get to peer review simply to promote debate. What exactly do they mean by "junk science?" Science that doesn't agree with their position. Is it? Or is that just the way you interpret it? "Junk science" usually means science that isn't particularly sound (the type of stuff that doesn't get to, and certainly not past, the peer reviewed phase). Are they actually referring simply to "contrary" papers, or ones based on poor scientific methodology? Edited November 24, 2009 by alanschu
Calax Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) Something to do with adjusting the data I think, raw data has to be adjusted for other variables to be meanigful. Apparently the raw data which the CRU had claimed disappeared so they wouldn't have to release it has also been leaked, and is being examined now. Ultimately you could probably change the data if it was in a predictive model, One of my professors last semesters had his Doctorate work in Tahoe and ended up in charge of setting up the model and he literally told us that so much of that is designed around human variables that you can make a predictive model pretty much say what you want, but if your model's human numbers don't jib with a bunch of other tests that have more... possible numbers, you're probably gonna have your data and variables looked over and face questions about why you picked what you did. That said, I'm willing to bet that this is a political hack job similar to what the discovery institute is trying to do with intelligent design. The "they're lying!" group, not the group that says warming is happening. Edited November 24, 2009 by Calax Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.
TheHarlequin Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-...ut-climategate/ Yes, I know it's a right wing web site, but they have links you can read for yourself. If you don't beleive in global warming your ignorant. EoD. I suppose you also beleive in all other right wing BS too. World of Darkness News http://www.wodnews.net --- "I cannot profess to be a theologian; but it seems to me that Christians who believe in a super human Satan have got themselves into a logical impasse with regard to their own religion. For either God can not prevent the mischief of Satan, in which case he is not omnipotent; or else He could do so if he wished, but will not, in which case He is not benevolent. Fortunately, being a pagan witch, I am not called upon to solve this problem." - Doreen Valiente
Hurlshort Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-...ut-climategate/ Yes, I know it's a right wing web site, but they have links you can read for yourself. If you don't beleive in global warming your ignorant. EoD. I suppose you also beleive in all other right wing BS too. Yeah, like reincarnation! Crazy kid PS - I'm just kidding Harli, please don't flame me
Walsingham Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-...ut-climategate/ Yes, I know it's a right wing web site, but they have links you can read for yourself. If you don't beleive in global warming your ignorant. EoD. Or you might have yet to see a comprehensive and intelligible case put to you. Is this your fault given the thousands of people who are paid to put that case forward? "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
213374U Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 If you don't beleive in global warming your ignorant. EoD.My ignorant... what? - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Recommended Posts