PalePictures Loc: Traveling

An interesting video where both sides give their position. Separately.
Yes, everyone agrees the climate is changing...
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eYKggC5VOzA

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

That was a very interesting video. One of the things that I found strange is that the mainstream climatologist would not defend his views with someone who had as much education and experience as himself, he would not even talk about his position if the scientist who had a different view was even in the room.
I ran across this article this morning that reinforced the differing view of c*****e c****e.
http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2016/12/31/skeptical_climate_scientists_coming_in_from_the_cold.html

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

One of the things I found strange is that Roy Spence, the "climate denier", also changed his mainstream views on evolutiona few years ago to become a proponent of Intelligent Design! (OF COURSE! I can see why Schmidt didn't want to get in a pissing contest with him... it would be like arguing with Racmanaz... LOLOL Goodness!!)

Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism (he even uses the ID made-up terms). In the scientific community, I am not alone.

What are the odds that a scientist would take the extreme minority opinion on two disparate scientific topics, climate and biological evolution... two contentious topics, that also by co-incidence have been politicized? ...and in both cases he states ironically, "In the scientific community, I am not alone." How can he even provide expert opinion in both fields? what are the odds, 100,000,000,000 to 1?

Maybe Spence is a professional science denier? ...I think he also provided testimony in 1975 that tobacco is completely unrelated to lung cancer.

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

Did you bother to look at the link I posted in this reply?
http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2016/12/31/skeptical_climate_scientists_coming_in_from_the_cold.html

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

I actually like you Green. I knew this would draw you out.
I believe in Evolution. Whether there is a creator or not. I let people believe what they want in that area.
A belief in God and a belief in evolution by many go hand in hand.
Although I don't agree with much of what RAC proposes. I am not threatened by it.
It doesn't stop me or my fellow man from putting food on his table.
I could care less what someone says about Lung cancer or what someone said he said years ago. Yes I believe Lung cancer k**ls!! I believe Lung cancer is caused by smoking and that you are a gazillion times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke.
Let's not muddy the waters here.
That's an irresponsible technique to discredit someone based upon something they said on an unrelated topic. If you want to create a separate topic with a direct quote from him I would be glad to read it and respond. Please give your source.. Better yet a video or an entire article so we can discuss it.
Stossel had offered 10 scientist the opportunity to debate. None of them took him up.
Most C*****e c****e deniers are not really deniers at all.
The non intelligent typically demonize anyone who has a different opinion.
Both the article that Phcann and the video reasonably and logically show there are differing opinions.

10 years ago the big topic was deforestation in the Amazon....Seemingly that topic is no longer hot.
The poor people there don't have to cut down trees for fuel because of f****l f**ls.
Look at Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
Prior to the 1900 Forest fires in the U.S. created more deforestation naturally than anything man has created.
There is actually more forestation in America than there has ever been. Simply because we can contain fires.
The real answer to the problem is to try and get off this planet. Now if you want to argue that point I'm all ears.

BTW
Funding today at universities(Especially with climate) is done by the Government. I know my son works at Vanderbilt. They get funding by government grants.
Vanderbilt itself was privately funded by one of the "Robber Barrons" aka what they would call today "Wall Street" and therefore gets much of it's funding from trust.
Oh those rich guys...They were sure evil.

and Please try not to write like you are a PHD. Most of the people like me are just lay people who don't understand the argument you put forth.
Please watch the video. It's pretty lay. Even the article is pretty lay.

Appeal to my logic and reason. I've got lots of that.

Tell me what is wrong with the reasoning. Not what is wrong with the person doing the reasoning.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Probably not that was based on logic and reasoning as well.

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

I have believed for years that the climate push was anything but a nonbiased discussion. The government pays for the results they want, not honest scientific study.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

I did watch the video, maybe not all of it. That "scientist" is throwing out canned political talking points.

And you will see, I try not to make personal attacks (although for some, I think they expect it ..so I throw them a bone)

I also believe that only a supreme creator could come up with a beautiful plan such as evolution. The place I take exception with Rac... is that he insists that ID is a science, when it specifically addresses an area outside the domain of science. What Racmanaz is trying so desperately to attain is a universal proof of God. He is trying to disprove the atheists belief (or lack of). This he cannot have, only for himself within his heart. God is outside of scientific "laws" and cannot be described by them.

I threw out the lung cancer thing only to point out that those with a lot to gain are the ones that will attempt to "purchase" favorable scientific findings. In the case of climate...let's see who has an agenda:

BENEFITING FROM EVIDENCE OF MAN-MADE C*****E C****E
1) pro-c*****e c****e scientists (government grants)
2) solar & wind technologies ($Millions in grants)

THREATENED FROM EVIDENCE OF MAN-MADE C*****E C****E
1) anti-c*****e c****e scientists (payoffs from private industry)
2) Big Oil Companies (Exxon-Mobil, Chevron et al)($Billions in tax credits)
3) Big Energy (producers, support technology)($Billions in tax credits)
4) Coal (it's done in already by economics, they may be desperate)

Also the economic arguments for the super-majority of climate scientists being bought off by grants doesn't make sense. It is a bullsh*t argument. Who would pay someone the big bucks to be the 200,001st scientist to confirm that g****l w*****g by man is real? Maybe ask who would pay that scientist instead to be one of "a few brave souls" to stand-up against overwhelming consensus?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/

Also you cannot overlook the fact that ALL 195 countries in the world agreed that this is NOT a h**x.... are they all really in on it? Just to get some grant money? Many scientists in many countries don't work off of grants...many scientists, and I would say most, are involved in finding out the scientific t***hs of our universe and not perpetrating a h**x to keep their money flowing.

EDIT: Also regarding "purchased" research... didn't Exxon's scientists show that man affected the climate back in the 70s?

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

I never felt it was a h**x, only not as dire as it is portrayed. The climate is changing as it always will, governments have found c*****e c****e a useful vehicle to use for more taxes and to promote more government control.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

The problem is that the momentum of the earth's systems as well as 7,000,000,000 humans is very difficult to change. Once factors have convinced everyone, it will be too late to change direction.

We admittedly don't know enough...we do know that many different and diverse climate factors are out of whack... not just temperature rise... and we do know that humans have had an adverse effect on the lifeforms on this planet.

best case scenario: Earth remain habitable for humans.
worst case scenario: The t***sition from f****l f**ls to clean energy is hastened.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Spencer does not declare that G****l w*****g is a "h**x" At least in the interview. What he actually said was the opposite of that. I will agree that it is not a h**x. What is up for debate is this.
How much of warming is Man Made?
Will change happened inevitably?
Does Plant life as a whole actually benefit from CO2 and will man be substantially impacted?
Will another wobble in the sun create another Ice age that may be offset by warming?
Do people suffer more today for the regulation imposed by a Green agenda versus what may or may not happen in the future?
Those jobs that will never be created by not having a pipeline from Alaska... Does that hurt our economy?
Does the fact that HAITI look's like a wasteland because they didn't use f****l f**ls benefit them?
Would the government in Haiti been better off encouraging f****l f**l fired plants?
Natural gas prices have come down in price to allow cogeneration...Wouldn't the Greens have been better off with their efforts to provide cogeneration in Haiti?
Does the price that we the taxpayer pay and all the people who would be put out of work justify the means?
Will the f****l f**ls run out altogether by gradual depletion which will make us go green by default?
When the economics work by default wouldn't that be better?
Would you personally put a gun to my head and make me pay for your Green agenda because you believe that it will benefit me. That's morality?
Does it make you feel better because you can v**e for a dozen people in congress to do something that you could not do personally to any individual? That's morality?
Am I against tax credits?..Absolutely. Even the ones that make these same companies go green.

As far as the crony capitalism where lobbyist pay off legislatures to benefit them. I certainly am not for that.
I was never for the Taxicab industry lobbying Legislature in Austin to shutdown Uber there?
Nor restaurants to shut down street vendors....All Cronyism.
I must say I am also not for legislatures to try and prevent commerce because of a green agenda either.

I actually do agree on some environmental controls by government. Gets back to that "Tragedy of the Commons" thingy
I breathe the air and drink the water that may come from your property....That is a perfect valid argument.
"Classical Liberals and Libertarians" can't defend that. Same for Fishing waters.
However.
CO2 and warming isn't up on that list of important factors.
Again the exponential factor of human population and Human sustainability will likely come far sooner than CO2.
V***ses and Plagues have helped with that. Medicine has hurt that.
Warming may in fact green up the planet a bit.
The h**x is not really a h**x.
When you fund things from government you will get more of what you fund.
I assure you Exxon Mobile cannot compete with what the American taxpayer will pay for funding scientist,
Those politicians sell you on something that will get them elected. That's why two sides exist.
"In my world there are no Ceasars" There are no sides that form that can use coercive force.
To me the jury is still out on the impact relating to the Green agenda and CO2. No need to worry.
There will be a different agenda when that one stops.... I remember when Green Peace tried to ban Chlorine.

And here is the greatest beneficiary of the Green agenda which you did not mention.
1) Government.

Government can tax people more. Make them less dependent on each other. More dependent on Daddy dearest.
No, it's not a conspiracy. It's Human Action.... Ludwig von Mises
F****l f**ls have benefited mankind more than any other thing in history.
I would really like to see the industry deregulated at least until my yard gets a little too green from the CO2. I live on the coast. I haven't personally noticed an increase in my tides.
As a matter of fact I see a lot more Fiddlers and I'm having to pull a lot more weeds these day. There's a lot better scuba diving here than there used to be, The rigs have all gone further out, to deeper water, where the real oil is.
The core of engineers actually sinks tugs in the gulf and makes for some nice reefs. Somebody actually had the great idea to remove the old closer in rigs that have expired. Some of the best man made reefs are from those rigs.
Fish have a great habitat and flourish there,
and there's tons more shrimp. Hurricane Katrina wiped out the shrimp industry for a while, and that spill in the gulf that happened a few years back. You would never know it happened.
I'm glad BP had to pay for it. They should have. I have to tell you from personal experience. The world sure isn't coming to an end for me. The fishing is great.

I read somewhere that the great barrier reef is expanding to warmer waters. Parts of it is dying. I also read it wasn't really dying....It's just moving to better ground very very slowly.
That Ice melt from the south doesn't work well with coral.

Maybe if we build that pipeline from Canada to the coast we'll become a little less dependent on foreign oil. Maybe we won't produce as much CO2 shipping the stuff in trucks that's fracked in the Dakotas.
For every action there is a reaction that is undetermined and immeasurable.
I like you Green. You are rational. I have a lot of friends who are both liberal and conservative. Needless to say we don't talk politics or religion.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

That 7,000,000,000 is going to get worse....A lot worse soon.
I actually agree with all of what you said here.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

The fallacy of Equivocation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

I don't think you will get anywhere with this, the liberal indoctrination is to well internalized into people who can't ever consider anything other than what they are told to believe.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

this is used by both sides when they don't have numbers...

1 volcano does NOT = 1 Billion humans


also, take a look at Prager U's biggest donors... they basically own fracking in the US.
https://rewire.news/article/2015/04/30/conservatives-spend-millions-proselytizing-school-children/


Here's an article that looks at 7 different studies on the consensus... Prager U's video only considers the 2013 Cook Study, and not these later 7 that ALL back it up using more rigorous sampling methods.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm