Its starting already.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Its starting already.
Not just go get an MRI because the doctor told us too
Doing it just because your doctor told you to is not wise and not at all what I said.
Doing it just because your doctor told you to is not wise and not at all what I said.
Re: Its starting already.
You're right, you just did your best to imply anyone who didn't ask a doctor what to d was an idiot.
So i guess in Kiryan's world:
Other people tell you what to think
But you shouldn't listen to them
Got it. :roll:
So i guess in Kiryan's world:
Other people tell you what to think
But you shouldn't listen to them
Got it. :roll:
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Its starting already.
Not consulting with other people is idiotic. Blindly doing what the experts say is also idiotic. Educate yourself, consult with other people (preferably experienced people) then make your decision based on your specific circumstances and point of view.
Which part don't you understand?
Which part don't you understand?
Re: Its starting already.
kiryan wrote:http://www.foxnews
Stopped reading after that.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Its starting already.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-pete-k ... 67043.html
This is a great article pointing out something I called out as well. Government releases study says we over test, other part of government says don't worry nothings going to change. You have analysis saying what we are doing wrong but the leaders who promised us change, to cut the waste, backpedaling at 100 mph.
------------
"Last week, leading experts correctly challenged long held practices in women's health."
...
"Kathleen Sebelius, Director of Health and Human Services (HHS) weighed in and suggested that women ignore the recommendations and continue doing what they have been doing. I was astounded."
...
"The current health reform bills have done little to change the incentives and drivers of increased health care costs. When good evidence suggests that increased testing provides no benefit, we should stop such testing."
------------
Why isn't Obama out there attacking the profit driven doctors and hospitals? Why isn't he challenging his HHS secretary on her statements? Science has spoken, we do too many mamographies and breast self exams don't work. Apparently Obama and his administration only listen to stem cell and climate scientists that support their own views. They only demonize insurance companies instead of the doctors and hospitals that actually generate all these charges that make insurance go up.
----
ll you are ignorant.
This is a great article pointing out something I called out as well. Government releases study says we over test, other part of government says don't worry nothings going to change. You have analysis saying what we are doing wrong but the leaders who promised us change, to cut the waste, backpedaling at 100 mph.
------------
"Last week, leading experts correctly challenged long held practices in women's health."
...
"Kathleen Sebelius, Director of Health and Human Services (HHS) weighed in and suggested that women ignore the recommendations and continue doing what they have been doing. I was astounded."
...
"The current health reform bills have done little to change the incentives and drivers of increased health care costs. When good evidence suggests that increased testing provides no benefit, we should stop such testing."
------------
Why isn't Obama out there attacking the profit driven doctors and hospitals? Why isn't he challenging his HHS secretary on her statements? Science has spoken, we do too many mamographies and breast self exams don't work. Apparently Obama and his administration only listen to stem cell and climate scientists that support their own views. They only demonize insurance companies instead of the doctors and hospitals that actually generate all these charges that make insurance go up.
----
ll you are ignorant.
Re: Its starting already.
kiryan wrote:ll you are ignorant.
If you truly believe that Fox News is an objective source of information for news reporting, then I am sorry for you Kiryan. I've been down this road before with other strong subscribers to the fox propaganda machine. I'm not going to convince you, but don't call me ignorant. I work in the communications industry. I work with the people you see on your TV, writing the articles you read, their general managers, their news directors, their art technicians, their engineers, you name it. In some cases I have their private emails and cell numbers, because that's how close I work with them from time to time. These are people from ABC, NBC, CBS, and yes, Fox.
As I said, I've met people like yourself before. You subscribe to what they sell and you do so avidly. There's no way I'm going to convince you they are less then reputable, so I'm not going to bother. You're going to believe what you want to believe. If you really wanted to take the red pill and see the truth, you'd do your own digging and find out for yourself.
Fox News is no more truthful objective then it is calm rational. Everything is going to kill us, we've been lied to and are being lied to right now, and it's all the jews.. err sorry.. the left's fault, and you should be angry... and fearful! We have the answers and we know what's right, but.. we'll be right back after this barrage of corporate america enticing you to purchase shit you don't need. All bow down and pay heed to the great Fox News Propaganda Money Machine.. and despair!
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Re: Its starting already.
Maybe if we see this from a different perspective it might help people realize how Fox is just as biased as CNN, NPR, etc. They're just less sneaky about it.
I hate Castro. He is a communist, he is a dictator, he is a murderer, a liar, a thief, etc. He oppresses the island's inhabitants and has been doing so for over 40 years. Same goes for his brother, and for Che, except he's dead. (CIA ftw). All you have seen on the various media outlets over the years are propaganda pieces about "Genocide in Sudan", "Racism in South Africa", "Lack of Freedom here, there, etc." But you never see Hollywood stars, or major television "news" organizations talking about the complete lack of freedom, rights, the assassinations, the 25 year prison sentences for protesting abortion, having a blog, etc. China is viewed more negatively than Cuba. How much of the information most of you THINK you know about Cuba is factual? (if you even care)
Fox News criticizes Castro. Fox News has actual news on events there, lack of freedom, speakers on the different shows, etc. The others do not. Just ask the NY Times, the CBC guys who went over there, Charles Rangel, etc.
Who's biased? Who isn't reporting the news? 92 miles away...
I hate Castro. He is a communist, he is a dictator, he is a murderer, a liar, a thief, etc. He oppresses the island's inhabitants and has been doing so for over 40 years. Same goes for his brother, and for Che, except he's dead. (CIA ftw). All you have seen on the various media outlets over the years are propaganda pieces about "Genocide in Sudan", "Racism in South Africa", "Lack of Freedom here, there, etc." But you never see Hollywood stars, or major television "news" organizations talking about the complete lack of freedom, rights, the assassinations, the 25 year prison sentences for protesting abortion, having a blog, etc. China is viewed more negatively than Cuba. How much of the information most of you THINK you know about Cuba is factual? (if you even care)
Fox News criticizes Castro. Fox News has actual news on events there, lack of freedom, speakers on the different shows, etc. The others do not. Just ask the NY Times, the CBC guys who went over there, Charles Rangel, etc.
Who's biased? Who isn't reporting the news? 92 miles away...
Re: Its starting already.
Jeez.. enough already. They are ALL biased. Even if news organizations strive for objectivity there is still someone in charge deciding what stories get run and unconsciously this personal bias will be reflected in the content. The only reason Fox News takes so much flack is that historically the major news outlets have been biased to the left. Fox is biased to the right and the liberals find that threatening. The fact that it is so enormously succesfull economically just shows that it is filling a vacuum created by the other news organizations that are left biased.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
- Location: grande prairie alberta canada
Re: Its starting already.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Maybe if we see this from a different perspective it might help people realize how Fox is just as biased as CNN, NPR, etc. They're just less sneaky about it.
I hate Castro. He is a communist, he is a dictator, he is a murderer, a liar, a thief, etc. He oppresses the island's inhabitants and has been doing so for over 40 years. Same goes for his brother, and for Che, except he's dead. (CIA ftw). All you have seen on the various media outlets over the years are propaganda pieces about "Genocide in Sudan", "Racism in South Africa", "Lack of Freedom here, there, etc." But you never see Hollywood stars, or major television "news" organizations talking about the complete lack of freedom, rights, the assassinations, the 25 year prison sentences for protesting abortion, having a blog, etc. China is viewed more negatively than Cuba. How much of the information most of you THINK you know about Cuba is factual? (if you even care)
Fox News criticizes Castro. Fox News has actual news on events there, lack of freedom, speakers on the different shows, etc. The others do not. Just ask the NY Times, the CBC guys who went over there, Charles Rangel, etc.
Who's biased? Who isn't reporting the news? 92 miles away...
Ive actually been to cuba (canadian citizen ftw!), the people there are very happy and seem to enjoy life. they live in slums very similar to mexico. i didnt just go to the tourist areas i spent some time in the poorer sections as well. i can honestly say that even though it is a communist nation, they live very similar lives to the other carribean countries ive visited. the people i talked to, did not critize castro, several of them said "if we didnt want him there anymore, he wouldnt be there." there will always be people trying to escape to america, cause it does offer a better quality of life...but than again so do mexicans. I think cuba is being critized just for the fact that they are communist, OMG!
Re: Its starting already.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Maybe if we see this from a different perspective it might help people realize how Fox is just as biased as CNN, NPR, etc. They're just less sneaky about it.
I hate Castro. He is a communist, he is a dictator, he is a murderer, a liar, a thief, etc. He oppresses the island's inhabitants and has been doing so for over 40 years. Same goes for his brother, and for Che, except he's dead. (CIA ftw). All you have seen on the various media outlets over the years are propaganda pieces about "Genocide in Sudan", "Racism in South Africa", "Lack of Freedom here, there, etc." But you never see Hollywood stars, or major television "news" organizations talking about the complete lack of freedom, rights, the assassinations, the 25 year prison sentences for protesting abortion, having a blog, etc. China is viewed more negatively than Cuba. How much of the information most of you THINK you know about Cuba is factual? (if you even care)
Fox News criticizes Castro. Fox News has actual news on events there, lack of freedom, speakers on the different shows, etc. The others do not. Just ask the NY Times, the CBC guys who went over there, Charles Rangel, etc.
Who's biased? Who isn't reporting the news? 92 miles away...
NPR just did a piece on this either last week or the week before -- which was a follow-up on a story on opening up Cuban trade and the problems surrounding it; but, I guess you'd have to actually pay attention to the thing you're criticizing to catch that you have nothing to criticize. I'd say more, but it would be no less than idle speculation; so keep watching Fox's 30 minutes of opinionews wrapped in 23.5hrs of hatemongering fear tactics.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Re: Its starting already.
amena wolfsnarl wrote:the people i talked to, did not critize castro
If they do, they get arrested or beat up by government-sponsored goons. See Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. Many of the people who CHOSE to stay behind did it out of an estranged sense of patriotic loyalty. Some are my relatives. They sure speak out enough about the horrid conditions of living there, the horrendous healthcare, the lack of food, the lack of work, rights, etc, etc. when they are able to get their visitation papers and come visit.
there will always be people trying to escape to america, cause it does offer a better quality of life...but than again so do mexicans.
There is no oppression in Mexico like that found in Cuba. There is freedom of the press in Mexico. There is freedom of assembly in Mexico. There is, however, ALOT of poverty in Mexico. That is why people attempting to cross over from Mexico are labeled immigrants, not exiles.
I think cuba is being critized just for the fact that they are communist, OMG!
No, that is only part of it. See everything else I said above, including the thousands killed/incarcerated for speaking out. Plus the thousands that have died trying to cross over on makeshift rafts. Plus the fact that the government took control of private businesses, lands, rights, etc.
Pazak, you need to read more about this man.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
- Location: grande prairie alberta canada
Re: Its starting already.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Pazak, you need to read more about this man.
Your probably right i was only making observations from a personal perspective, from my visit there. most of the people i talked to seemed okay with him, i asked a bunch of questions about it cause i was interested on how the people felt about living in a communist country and what it was like for them on a daily basis.
I have no doubt that there is more to this. My only thing is because it is a communist nation, media reporting on it automatically paint it in a different light, something more sinister if you will.
Re: Its starting already.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:amena wolfsnarl wrote:the people i talked to, did not critize castro
If they do, they get arrested or beat up by government-sponsored goons.
Did you hear about that on Fox News? :D No, I don't disagree with you, I'm just being snarky :P
So here's my question to you then... what makes you think that CNN is biased toward Castro? What possible left-wing agenda would they be fulfilling by "covering up" his atrocities?
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Its starting already.
ll you are an ignorant and deluded liberal. Your views are just as self serving as mine are and fox's. I read all the news, the liberal rags, the conservative ones, fox, BBC ect... I read the same story from several perspectives to pick up on stuff each side doesn't mention for whatever reason because I'm actually interested in what the truth is. All you fox naysayers are truly amazing. You consider yourself intelligent, but try to delegitimize the major contrarian viewpoint by simply saying its not news and are in general just as or are more close minded than conservatives.
Glenn Beck (NOT NEWS) broke several stories on Obama's Czars... it was clearly partisian research aimed at getting these guys out of his cabinet... but it was truth and it was certainly something somewhere around half of us found it to be very important. None of the liberal rags carried it until way after the stories broke why? Because they didn't think it was news worthy? It got their asses kicked out of the administration, but it wasn't important?
You're exactly like these stupid fucking climate scientists, we don't consider their viewpoints legitimate so we are going to work to supress their opinions and ostracize them while we call our opinions "real science". Speaking of...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hack ... index.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1259026 ... sNewsThird
Two articles on the whole climate science email flap, the CNN one in my opinion is decidedly, but very subtlely, bias'd to the left in support of climate change. The WSJ one points out some very serious and unquestionable issues with the conduct of these scientists that the CNN article just glosses over.
This is CNN's conclusion:
Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.
"There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax," he told Threat Level. "There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation.
"It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way."
--
This is WSJ's
East Anglia researchers "violated a fundamental principle of science," he said, by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They built a group to do gatekeeping, which is also totally unacceptable," he added. "They play science as a power game."
--
Sure Fox spins stuff, but its disingenous to pretend that all the liberal rags are not bias'd... Liberals pretend to be impartial, use subtle words and claim science instead of the base and religious ones Fox does, but they always seem to come down on the same side of an issue. Hipocrites.
Glenn Beck (NOT NEWS) broke several stories on Obama's Czars... it was clearly partisian research aimed at getting these guys out of his cabinet... but it was truth and it was certainly something somewhere around half of us found it to be very important. None of the liberal rags carried it until way after the stories broke why? Because they didn't think it was news worthy? It got their asses kicked out of the administration, but it wasn't important?
You're exactly like these stupid fucking climate scientists, we don't consider their viewpoints legitimate so we are going to work to supress their opinions and ostracize them while we call our opinions "real science". Speaking of...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hack ... index.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1259026 ... sNewsThird
Two articles on the whole climate science email flap, the CNN one in my opinion is decidedly, but very subtlely, bias'd to the left in support of climate change. The WSJ one points out some very serious and unquestionable issues with the conduct of these scientists that the CNN article just glosses over.
This is CNN's conclusion:
Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.
"There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax," he told Threat Level. "There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation.
"It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way."
--
This is WSJ's
East Anglia researchers "violated a fundamental principle of science," he said, by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They built a group to do gatekeeping, which is also totally unacceptable," he added. "They play science as a power game."
--
Sure Fox spins stuff, but its disingenous to pretend that all the liberal rags are not bias'd... Liberals pretend to be impartial, use subtle words and claim science instead of the base and religious ones Fox does, but they always seem to come down on the same side of an issue. Hipocrites.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
- Location: grande prairie alberta canada
Re: Its starting already.
I understand that all media is biased, i agree that you need to take in all the information possible before you form your own opinion, most people arent able to do this though. They allow others to form thier opinion for them.
All media has slanted political views, fox just has a worse reputation for it. If you think they dont deserve that reputation your crazy kiyran.
All media has slanted political views, fox just has a worse reputation for it. If you think they dont deserve that reputation your crazy kiyran.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 3923
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Waterdeep
Re: Its starting already.
Llaaldara wrote:kiryan wrote:http://www.foxnews
Stopped reading after that.
Too many letters at once for ya.
Re: Its starting already.
I think it's a request for better information filtering. Fox News watchers say they're adept at pulling the facts out of various news sources and ignoring the bias - perhaps you should compile them appropriately, and post that analysis instead of a link, so we could have a discussion on the topic.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Its starting already.
You want better news huh, look at this. Apparently Tiger Wood's crash is 37x more news worthy than a slew of emails that "read poorly" that have resulted in at least 1 climate research leader having stepped down and general publication of the fact that scientific climate data was destroyed for no defendable reason. Clearly more of fox news not being news while the liberal rags pretend its not a legitimate story. 37 stories on tiger woods, and they call Fox infotainment?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12 ... l-scandal/
Nearly two weeks since news broke of the e-mail scandal, climate change skeptics have gloated; a leading climate scientist has resigned; at least one U.S. lawmaker has called for an investigation, and countless prominent news outlets have deemed the story worthy of major reporting.
...
"An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions," the Institute reported Wednesday.
But during that time, the Institute says, "the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods' 'minor' car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president’s State Dinner."
How would you know what you don't know since your liberal rags refuse to report on stuff because its contrary to their agenda without watching fox?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12 ... l-scandal/
Nearly two weeks since news broke of the e-mail scandal, climate change skeptics have gloated; a leading climate scientist has resigned; at least one U.S. lawmaker has called for an investigation, and countless prominent news outlets have deemed the story worthy of major reporting.
...
"An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions," the Institute reported Wednesday.
But during that time, the Institute says, "the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods' 'minor' car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president’s State Dinner."
How would you know what you don't know since your liberal rags refuse to report on stuff because its contrary to their agenda without watching fox?
Re: Its starting already.
At least the Daily Show covered climate-gate and the absurd coverage of Tiger Woods, even though they only have 30 minutes a day, and were off last week.
Unfortunately, science is real even if you don't like it.
Unfortunately, science is real even if you don't like it.
Last edited by Todrael on Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Its starting already.
I never said that the emails proved the science was wrong. Every article about this seems to include the line that despite how nasty this whole thing is, nothing was found that went against the "strong arm" consensus that these scientists have built over the past decade. I'm just pointing out that this is news worthy, fox did carry it and other liberal networks did not. Now why wouldn't they carry a news story of this magnitude? A major climate researcher stepped down, there are congressional hearings, scientific data has been permanently lost...
although I hope you can admit three things.
1. Data should not have been destroyed and every scientists knows this. Its anti science.
2. Trying to discredit and ostracize other scientists by manipulating the rules and procedures to exclude them from publishing and accessing data is anti science. You prove them wrong by dissecting their work or by submitting opposing papers, you don't just refuse to publish their work because it disagrees with yours. Suppresion of ideas and research is anti-science.
3. Regardless of whether the science is 100% correct, they've lost some amount of credibility through the conduct evident in the emails. It would be fair for people to say we need to take another look at all this to determine if its all above the board.
although I hope you can admit three things.
1. Data should not have been destroyed and every scientists knows this. Its anti science.
2. Trying to discredit and ostracize other scientists by manipulating the rules and procedures to exclude them from publishing and accessing data is anti science. You prove them wrong by dissecting their work or by submitting opposing papers, you don't just refuse to publish their work because it disagrees with yours. Suppresion of ideas and research is anti-science.
3. Regardless of whether the science is 100% correct, they've lost some amount of credibility through the conduct evident in the emails. It would be fair for people to say we need to take another look at all this to determine if its all above the board.
Re: Its starting already.
1) Yes, I agree.
2) Yes, I agree.
3) I would agree if you were being specific to these individual scientists, but you seem to be saying that since this tiny number of people committed the errors above, they invalidate the thousands upon thousands of other scientists who have kept their act in line and still have their raw data available to the public. That, I will not agree with.
2) Yes, I agree.
3) I would agree if you were being specific to these individual scientists, but you seem to be saying that since this tiny number of people committed the errors above, they invalidate the thousands upon thousands of other scientists who have kept their act in line and still have their raw data available to the public. That, I will not agree with.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Its starting already.
fair enough, although the individuals involved were at the forefront of the field at the UN climate research center.
Also, since they didn't hack all climate scientists email everywhere, just this one research center. Amazingly, they found the only improprietaries that exist in the whole climate science sphere... or did they?
Also, since they didn't hack all climate scientists email everywhere, just this one research center. Amazingly, they found the only improprietaries that exist in the whole climate science sphere... or did they?
Re: Its starting already.
You should at least read the short post I linked with 'science is real'.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Its starting already.
I read the article, didn't follow all the links. Really I'm not that up on the global warming research... I really liked the part about incestuous research and group think (A cites B, B cites A we've now corrobated our research "independently").
as far as the independent data goes... I'm sure there is some independent data, I'm sure there is some data that appears to be independent when its just the same data served up by someone different. Not everyone has a thermometer in Antartica, not everyone has satelites in the sky measuing temperature, cloud density ect... Regardless of the data questions... none of these statments seem to address some of the primary arguments against global warming:
1. global warming is the result of increased solar activity
2. the models don't predict what is happening with any kind of accuracy
3. We don't understand all the positive / negative mechanisms that contribute or take away from global warming.
the entire global warming call to action is based on models that show catastrophe in 10, 20, 100 years and these models can't are unable to predict anything accurately in the short term but we are sure they'll be right over 10 or 100 years. They had no idea that we'd have a decade of a "cooling trend" (which is apparently highly debated whether there is or isn't a cooling trend) which some argue coincides with a period of decreased solar activity. They can't explain why there wasn't an ice age 2.5 billion years ago when the solar activity was 25% lower than it is today... There are lots of questions yet there is somehow a global consensus that the earth is warming and human activity is to blame.
I don't know if Global Warming is happening... it may be, it may not be. I know that there is billions of dollars at stake, and that every one else in the world wants us to give them money because we damaged the environment or because we've polluted it they can't develop the same way we did (and get our quality of life). They stand to win whether its real or not. We are the primary ones that will lose if its not real.
as far as the independent data goes... I'm sure there is some independent data, I'm sure there is some data that appears to be independent when its just the same data served up by someone different. Not everyone has a thermometer in Antartica, not everyone has satelites in the sky measuing temperature, cloud density ect... Regardless of the data questions... none of these statments seem to address some of the primary arguments against global warming:
1. global warming is the result of increased solar activity
2. the models don't predict what is happening with any kind of accuracy
3. We don't understand all the positive / negative mechanisms that contribute or take away from global warming.
the entire global warming call to action is based on models that show catastrophe in 10, 20, 100 years and these models can't are unable to predict anything accurately in the short term but we are sure they'll be right over 10 or 100 years. They had no idea that we'd have a decade of a "cooling trend" (which is apparently highly debated whether there is or isn't a cooling trend) which some argue coincides with a period of decreased solar activity. They can't explain why there wasn't an ice age 2.5 billion years ago when the solar activity was 25% lower than it is today... There are lots of questions yet there is somehow a global consensus that the earth is warming and human activity is to blame.
I don't know if Global Warming is happening... it may be, it may not be. I know that there is billions of dollars at stake, and that every one else in the world wants us to give them money because we damaged the environment or because we've polluted it they can't develop the same way we did (and get our quality of life). They stand to win whether its real or not. We are the primary ones that will lose if its not real.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Its starting already.
But I'm getting distracted.
So basically Fox covered this, and several other liberal networks failed for several days to almost 2 weeks and those that did emphasized how this didn't change the science rather than the damning behavior of scientists acting in violation of the principles of science.
Is this honest to goodness news or just more fox bias? How would you know about this if Fox didn't lead and others followed (even if your liberal news didn't)?
So basically Fox covered this, and several other liberal networks failed for several days to almost 2 weeks and those that did emphasized how this didn't change the science rather than the damning behavior of scientists acting in violation of the principles of science.
Is this honest to goodness news or just more fox bias? How would you know about this if Fox didn't lead and others followed (even if your liberal news didn't)?
Re: Its starting already.
Honestly, I go out of my way to avoid news, and it's almost impossible not to see this stuff posted everywhere across the internet. At least 5 of the blogs I read regularly "contributed" to coverage of climate-gate. And it was on the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report. My grandpa brought it up when I was visiting for thanksgiving. You would have to live in some kind of radiated post-apocalyptic future not to hear about it.
Re: Its starting already.
kiryan wrote:We are the primary ones that will lose if its not real.
And if it is real, we'll all be fine and dandy?
Re: Its starting already.
The credibility of scientists is important, but what's more important is the data. Everyone is biased. The numbers don't lie. I've seen convincing evidence both for and against global warming. My analysis of the data is different depending on the timescale you use for your observation.
In general: Average global temperatures oscillate over time. This oscillation has many orders of magnitude... if you look at a chart of global temperatures over the last ten years, you can see a cyclical pattern. If you zoom out and examine a chart of global temperatures over the last million years, you can actually see a very similar pattern over a much larger scale.
Looking at the ten-year scale, we're currently on the downward portion of the cycle. For the last couple years, temperatures have been on the decline.
However, if you look at the last 200 years, we're currently on an upward trend that is starting to rise above expected levels. The high and low point of each 10-year cycle are getting higher... and not just that, they're getting higher than we'd expect them to be in their natural pattern. It's at this level of detail that I find the strongest evidence for global warming.
But then again, if you look at a million-year scale, there's nothing out of the ordinary. The deviation you see on the 200-year chart doesn't register as an anomaly at this scale. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that our activities over the last 50 some odd years have had enough time to make a statistically significant impact on the global temperature at large.
Soo... yeah, it's a mish-mash of data. We'll be arguing about this until we all die of old age, because there are so many levels of complexity that it's impossible for anyone to conclusively decide whether there's a problem or not. The only way we'll ever know for sure is if we fuck up really, really bad and we crank the temperature up 10 degrees :)
Re: Its starting already.
Ragorn wrote:Soo... yeah, it's a mish-mash of data. We'll be arguing about this until we all die of old age,
Or drown in our homes as waterworld takes over... :P
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 3923
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Waterdeep
Re: Its starting already.
Ragorn wrote: The numbers don't lie.
People that make up numbers do. Read about Climategate and try to tell me that the data hasn't been fudged.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Its starting already.
I love that cartoon.
I think its very probable we have modified the earth's climate. I find it very very improbable that the Earth or we are going to die as a result. It may get hotter, the haves and have nots may change and that would probably be a catastrophe from someones point of view, but it just doesn't bother me. New Orleans might get flooded again, but I just don't know why I should care and have to go through all this extra effort to preserve wealth.
I think its very probable we have modified the earth's climate. I find it very very improbable that the Earth or we are going to die as a result. It may get hotter, the haves and have nots may change and that would probably be a catastrophe from someones point of view, but it just doesn't bother me. New Orleans might get flooded again, but I just don't know why I should care and have to go through all this extra effort to preserve wealth.
Re: Its starting already.
kiryan wrote:I find it very very improbable that...we are going to die as a result.
kiryan wrote:New Orleans might get flooded again, but I just don't know why I should care.
So you think it's unlikely that some people will die as a result of this, but maybe they will, and why should you care?
Re: Its starting already.
kiryan wrote:...extra effort to preserve wealth.
Isn't the main argument AGAINST trying to prevent global warming that it will reduce our wealth? If you don't care about that, then why not do it and NOT have millions of people die? Does the Bible say "Help your fellow man, but only if it doesn't require any actual effort" or something?
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Its starting already.
Are you really surprised that I'm concerned about the potential transfer of wealth? Really? From me?
Let me sum up the UN global warming conference. We're poor, Europe and the USA got rich polluting the environment, now you have to give us money. Its all about the fucking money and if you don't know that you're stupid.
We are going to have to adapt to changes in our environment. Changes have happened throughout history. I don't see how this is any different. I also am very skeptical that they understand the environment as well as they think they do (lack of warming over the past 10 decades in their models a case in point) and I agree with some skeptics that the sun is a very huge and important factor in how hot (or cold) the earth is.
If you wanted to tax me $1,000 a year to put a reflective blanked up in space, that makes sense to me. If you want to tax me $1,000 a year so you can give some Brazillians money not to cut down trees or create a carbon trading scheme where established players in the industry get a windfall in free carbon credits... you can take a hike. If you want me to cede political and economic control of this nation to the UN under the guise of climate change, prepare for a fight. There was an article the other day somehwere about how this UN climate agency has been planning for over a decade how to gain and maintain this type of control over the countries of the world.
also, lets examine this for what it is, mutually assured destruction. As this process starts to happen, who is going to blink first. The rich countries who can afford to offset environmental changes or the poor countries. This is a negotiation regardless of whether climate science is accurate and we hold enough cards to demand a fair deal for our country. I reject the notion that we have to concede more just because we are richer. If this is a global problem, everyone has to share in the pain equally, not just the rich countries.
Let me sum up the UN global warming conference. We're poor, Europe and the USA got rich polluting the environment, now you have to give us money. Its all about the fucking money and if you don't know that you're stupid.
We are going to have to adapt to changes in our environment. Changes have happened throughout history. I don't see how this is any different. I also am very skeptical that they understand the environment as well as they think they do (lack of warming over the past 10 decades in their models a case in point) and I agree with some skeptics that the sun is a very huge and important factor in how hot (or cold) the earth is.
If you wanted to tax me $1,000 a year to put a reflective blanked up in space, that makes sense to me. If you want to tax me $1,000 a year so you can give some Brazillians money not to cut down trees or create a carbon trading scheme where established players in the industry get a windfall in free carbon credits... you can take a hike. If you want me to cede political and economic control of this nation to the UN under the guise of climate change, prepare for a fight. There was an article the other day somehwere about how this UN climate agency has been planning for over a decade how to gain and maintain this type of control over the countries of the world.
also, lets examine this for what it is, mutually assured destruction. As this process starts to happen, who is going to blink first. The rich countries who can afford to offset environmental changes or the poor countries. This is a negotiation regardless of whether climate science is accurate and we hold enough cards to demand a fair deal for our country. I reject the notion that we have to concede more just because we are richer. If this is a global problem, everyone has to share in the pain equally, not just the rich countries.
Re: Its starting already.
kiryan wrote:Are you really surprised that I'm concerned about the potential transfer of wealth?
Kiryan wrote: I just don't know why I should care and have to go through all this extra effort to preserve wealth.
Umm... yeah.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 3923
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Waterdeep
Re: Its starting already.
kiryan wrote:I think its very probable we have modified the earth's climate.
Oh, human activity has DEFINITELY modified the earth's climate. It would just be helpful to know how or to what before we begin destroying economies and starving people.
How will you help hide the decline?
Re: Its starting already.
teflor the ranger wrote:kiryan wrote:I think its very probable we have modified the earth's climate.
Oh, human activity has DEFINITELY modified the earth's climate. It would just be helpful to know how or to what before we begin destroying economies and starving people.
How will you help hide the decline?
Since when do you care about starving people?
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Its starting already.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260793 ... atsNewsTop
an article about poor nations walking out cuz the world only promised them a pathetic 10 billion a year.
This is welfare for "poor"nations. This is a negotiation and everyone is trying to get as much as they possibly can. Some other articles said that the "rich" countries (20%) are trying to lay claim to the right to pollute 60% of the air. I don't know if thats fair in some book (whether by land mass or something), but this shit is about money first, the environment second.
Ideological tools like Al Gore and Obama are being used to try and drive our economy and our lives into parity with the rest of the world. They don't want us to be rich, have nice houses and every gadget you can imagine. They want us to be poor like them, they want to tax the millionaires and give it to the people who are living in the slums.
an article about poor nations walking out cuz the world only promised them a pathetic 10 billion a year.
This is welfare for "poor"nations. This is a negotiation and everyone is trying to get as much as they possibly can. Some other articles said that the "rich" countries (20%) are trying to lay claim to the right to pollute 60% of the air. I don't know if thats fair in some book (whether by land mass or something), but this shit is about money first, the environment second.
Ideological tools like Al Gore and Obama are being used to try and drive our economy and our lives into parity with the rest of the world. They don't want us to be rich, have nice houses and every gadget you can imagine. They want us to be poor like them, they want to tax the millionaires and give it to the people who are living in the slums.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Its starting already.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/healt ... ef=general
another article about how mammographies are ineffective and expensive. Good thing they passed a bunch of laws guaranteeing mamograms and the science and data driven health and human secretaries vowed that mammograms would continue.
These two quotes were particularly entertaining.
“Mortality from breast cancer is decreasing, and I have to believe that screening mammography has played a part,” Dr. Lee said.
Shew, I mean he beleives it, thats great. Replace Dr with scientist and mammography with climate change and you've got the whole irrefutable global warming (oops i mean global climate change since warming isn't working out for them) argument.
“I think we have to respect what women want to do.”
(who cares about science, data and cost right? when do white men get this kind of treatment?)
another article about how mammographies are ineffective and expensive. Good thing they passed a bunch of laws guaranteeing mamograms and the science and data driven health and human secretaries vowed that mammograms would continue.
These two quotes were particularly entertaining.
“Mortality from breast cancer is decreasing, and I have to believe that screening mammography has played a part,” Dr. Lee said.
Shew, I mean he beleives it, thats great. Replace Dr with scientist and mammography with climate change and you've got the whole irrefutable global warming (oops i mean global climate change since warming isn't working out for them) argument.
“I think we have to respect what women want to do.”
(who cares about science, data and cost right? when do white men get this kind of treatment?)
Re: Its starting already.
By posting after this post, you hereby fully pledge Communism, watching gay porn at work, and support Sarah Palin.
Re: Its starting already.
By posting after this post, you also support free bacon.
Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests