Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
12th Man

Global Warm, er, Climate Chan, er, SCIENCE = WRONG!

Recommended Posts

So, a scientist wouldn't fudge data to please their govt bosses? The Govt plays it down the

middle? It can't have a desired outcome?

So you look at all scientists. The vast majority of them work for either government directly or a subsidized educational institute. Worldwide. They all say x.

 

The small minority works for the guy whose pocket will directly be screwed by decrease in fossil fuel production. 100% plain as day bias.

 

Yet you choose to believe B. Wonder why. Perhaps you approached the question with a bias yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you look at all scientists. The vast majority of them work for either government directly or a subsidized educational institute. Worldwide. They all say x.

 

The small minority works for the guy whose pocket will directly be screwed by decrease in fossil fuel production. 100% plain as day bias.

 

Yet you choose to believe B. Wonder why. Perhaps you approached the question with a bias yourself.

Have I ever stayed either way what my thoughts on climate change are? My posistion on the matter is I don't think pollution is good and we can use far less of it. But I don't need dogma from either side to back up my conclusion. I figured that out all by myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deadly London Tower Fire Fueled By ‘Green Energy’ Rules

 

 

London’s Grenfell Tower was made worse by government “green energy requirements” that allowed fire to rapidly engulf the building Wednesday, leaving at least 17 people dead and scores more wounded or missing.

.

“I have never seen a fire that has engulfed an entire building like this in a career of more than 30 years,” Matt Wrack, who heads the Fire Brigades Union, told The Telegraph.

.

The Telegraph noted that cladding “is used as an insulation to make buildings more sustainable to meet green energy requirements.” Some 30,000 buildings in the U.K. have been retrofitted with cladding to cheaply comply with green energy mandates.

.

However, building residents and experts have warned about the fire risks of cladding for years. A blog post by the Grenfell Action Group in November 2016 warned that “only a catastrophic event” would bring attention to the building’s issue.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/15/deadly-london-tower-fire-fueled-by-green-energy-rules/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a scientist wouldn't fudge data to please their govt bosses? The Govt plays it down the

middle? It can't have a desired outcome?

There's always a desired outcome.

 

Thats...you know...part of the scientific process.

 

Whether the results of the experiment prove that to be factually correct, or inconclusive, or incorrect, depends on the experiment and the conductor itself.

 

Scientists don't solely care about appeasing their government. The only way to get your information widely viewed, further researched, etc is to get it submitted and approved through a peer-reviewed process and have others test the validity of your process. The government isnt going to publish a study and call it factual if it hasnt been widely peer-reviewed. They would become a laughing stock.

 

Those scientists also come from different governments and different agendas. They're also in a dog eat dog world too. Theyre competing against each other while also trying to build off others work.

 

It is painstakingly difficult to get something published to a peer-reviewed journal. I know. I had to go through the process. While mine was not science-based, the process is the same. Any little thing someone can scrutinize they do. However...I would rather see higher rejection rates across the board to be honest. Lesser known and smaller review journals often accept at a higher rate, which leads some to submit their work to those in order to avoid the harsh scrutiny and/or rejection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always a desired outcome.

 

Thats...you know...part of the scientific process.

 

Whether the results of the experiment prove that to be factually correct, or inconclusive, or incorrect, depends on the experiment and the conductor itself.

 

Scientists don't solely care about appeasing their government. The only way to get your information widely viewed, further researched, etc is to get it submitted and approved through a peer-reviewed process and have others test the validity of your process. The government isnt going to publish a study and call it factual if it hasnt been widely peer-reviewed. They would become a laughing stock.

 

Those scientists also come from different governments and different agendas. They're also in a dog eat dog world too. Theyre competing against each other while also trying to build off others work.

 

It is painstakingly difficult to get something published to a peer-reviewed journal. I know. I had to go through the process. While mine was not science-based, the process is the same. Any little thing someone can scrutinize they do. However...I would rather see higher rejection rates across the board to be honest. Lesser known and smaller review journals often accept at a higher rate, which leads some to submit their work to those in order to avoid the harsh scrutiny and/or rejection.

Tl/dr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60% Of Millennials Willing To Give Just $10 Or Less To Fight Climate Change

 

The survey asked millennials, "How much would you be willing to personally give to the government this year to fight climate change?" A total of 60% of the respondents — which included more liberals and centrists than conservatives — either offered no money at all or were only willing to hand over ten bucks.

 

A third (33%) said they'd give zero dollars; 27% said they would give only $10 a year; and 22% were willing to give $100. Altogether a total of 82% were unwilling to give more than $100 to combat "mankind's greatest threat."

 

Of the final 18%, a total of 9% were willing to give $250, 4% were willing to hand over $1,000 and 5% said they'd give more than a grand.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17674/exclusive-60-millennials-unwilling-give-more-10-james-barrett#

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

except everything is made out of carbon, its continually being produced, fracking has taken clean energy to the next level, we have an infinite amount of natural gas as well.

 

look I am not saying Solar is a bad thing, it saves me money, I have 90 solar panels, but thats the only reason I have them, they have tried mass projects near me, the Mojave desert and it has been a disaster, Palm Springs has thousands of windmills and their energy costs are even higher, cause they have to ship the electricity out and pay for it to come back, sure keep working on perfecting it, I think its a smart idea that all houses be built with solar as well mandatory, but to think its the solution is wrong

 

Nuclear is the best solution regarding energy but it has such a negative mark behind it

 

Sorry, I don't usually check in on the weekends and then was busy all day yesterday (and will be for most of this week). The highlighted is the answer. Wind/Solar is terribly inefficient. We need to be using Nuclear energy but the left is scared of it and the right are slaves to big oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one on the Left's MMGW scientists they love to quote.

 

Bill Nye isnt actually a scientist. He has a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering. He left that field to do stand-up comedy for a while before breaking into showbiz. And apparently, over the years, his basic ideas about science have evolved into something that has nothing to do with science at all, and everything to do with leftist ideology.

 

Nye is an avid supporter of climate change. He even thinks it may be a good idea to jail climate-change skeptics.

http://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2017/04/bill-nye-no-science-guy/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one on the Left's MMGW scientists they love to quote.

 

Bill Nye isnt actually a scientist. He has a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering. He left that field to do stand-up comedy for a while before breaking into showbiz. And apparently, over the years, his basic ideas about science have evolved into something that has nothing to do with science at all, and everything to do with leftist ideology.

 

Nye is an avid supporter of climate change. He even thinks it may be a good idea to jail climate-change skeptics.

http://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2017/04/bill-nye-no-science-guy/

 

All playing a part in this global scam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

why not invest in that, fossil fuels are the most effecient means for energy hands down.

 

 

Actually nuclear energy is orders of magnitude more efficient than any fossil fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually nuclear energy is orders of magnitude more efficient than any fossil fuel.

 

true, except the part about the fuel being from fossils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always a desired outcome.

 

Thats...you know...part of the scientific process.

 

Whether the results of the experiment prove that to be factually correct, or inconclusive, or incorrect, depends on the experiment and the conductor itself.

 

Scientists don't solely care about appeasing their government. The only way to get your information widely viewed, further researched, etc is to get it submitted and approved through a peer-reviewed process and have others test the validity of your process. The government isnt going to publish a study and call it factual if it hasnt been widely peer-reviewed. They would become a laughing stock.

 

Those scientists also come from different governments and different agendas. They're also in a dog eat dog world too. Theyre competing against each other while also trying to build off others work.

 

It is painstakingly difficult to get something published to a peer-reviewed journal. I know. I had to go through the process. While mine was not science-based, the process is the same. Any little thing someone can scrutinize they do. However...I would rather see higher rejection rates across the board to be honest. Lesser known and smaller review journals often accept at a higher rate, which leads some to submit their work to those in order to avoid the harsh scrutiny and/or rejection.

The scientific method has an expected outcome, not desired. The concern by many is that for climate scientists it has indeed become desired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being a climate scientist myself... who should I listen to? The Republican party or every major scientific organization on the planet?

 

Yeah, I know "those organizations make money off the hoax." Kinda like "doctors could cure cancer, but won't because it's so lucrative."

 

Yall are nuts. The day Stephen Hawking says climate change is BS, I'm in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know "those organizations make money off the hoax." Kinda like "doctors could cure cancer, but won't because it's so lucrative."

The left wasted billions on clean energy startups under Obama. Imagine if the right gives in and gives them full access to the pocketbook. No thanks.

 

The Earth has gotten warmer since day one, with brief interludes of cold influenced by anomaly. Ice hasn't stood a chance in the long run. Man has certainly influenced climate. How could he not? Still, we can't make the Earth do anything it doesn't want to do already. The thought that we could is preposterous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being a climate scientist myself... who should I listen to? The Republican party or every major scientific organization on the planet?

 

Yeah, I know "those organizations make money off the hoax." Kinda like "doctors could cure cancer, but won't because it's so lucrative."

 

Yall are nuts. The day Stephen Hawking says climate change is BS, I'm in.

the day stephen hawking says anything, im in.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, we can't make the Earth do anything it doesn't want to do already. The thought that we could is preposterous.

Not according to Hawking. Is he on the take too or just stupid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left wasted billions on clean energy startups under Obama. Imagine if the right gives in and gives them full access to the pocketbook. No thanks.

 

The Earth has gotten warmer since day one, with brief interludes of cold influenced by anomaly. Ice hasn't stood a chance in the long run. Man has certainly influenced climate. How could he not? Still, we can't make the Earth do anything it doesn't want to do already. The thought that we could is preposterous.

Exactly... The Earth can take care of itself... Thinking that we can destroy it is just dumb...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not according to Hawking. Is he on the take too or just stupid?

Of the documented times of Earth cooling it was a result of something getting between the Earth and the Sun. So if Hawking believes that we can shoot something into the atmosphere to reflect the Sun's rays, I agree. If not, he's stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being a climate scientist myself... who should I listen to? The Republican party or every major scientific organization on the planet?

 

Yeah, I know "those organizations make money off the hoax." Kinda like "doctors could cure cancer, but won't because it's so lucrative."

 

Yall are nuts. The day Stephen Hawking says climate change is BS, I'm in.

 

See, there's your problem. That's like saying 17 national security agencies all looked in to the Russian Hacking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not according to Hawking. Is he on the take too or just stupid?

 

He's not stupid, but he is going off the deep end. I think he knows his end is near, so he wants to go out with some kind of prognosticative "big bang", so to speak.

 

 

"We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid," he told BBC News.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40461726

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He's not stupid, but he is going off the deep end. I think he knows his end is near, so he wants to go out with some kind of prognosticative "big bang", so to speak.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40461726

 

lol hilarious, hes lost it

 

even all these end of world climate catastrophes have concluded that by 2100 it might, might raise by 1 degree

 

to all climate catastrophe jackasses watch Randall Carlson in this thread

 

society thrives when temperature rises, I have quoted him 4-5 times in this thread alone, and nobody has even attempted to challenge his facts.

 

the real number is something like 64% of scientists, but there are plenty and I mean plenty of people who challenge MMGW and the fact that its doom and gloom

 

we are at a higher risk of being wiped out by something that you know has wiped the earth clean almost twice, and that is a asteroid/comet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

See, there's your problem. That's like saying 17 national security agencies all looked in to the Russian Hacking.

This. He just basically admitted Climate change is fake news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the day stephen hawking says anything, im in.

 

This..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is how science works:

 

EPA-funded lab faked research results on respiratory illnesses,

 

Duke University has admitted that one of its lab technicians falsified or fabricated research data on respiratory illnesses that were used to get large grants from the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

The admission came Sunday in legal filings that respond to a federal whistleblower lawsuit, which the school tried to get dismissed, by former lab analyst Joseph Thomas, according to the Durham Herald-Sun. Thomas claims in his lawsuit that the allegedly fake research data of Erin Potts-Kant, who worked eight years at a Duke medical school lab, was used by the prestigious university and some of its professors to fraudulently obtain federal grants. Thomas also claims Duke tried to hide the alleged fraud.

 

Potts-Kant told a Duke investigation panel, which reviewed 36 of her reports, her fake data was “included in various publications and grant applications.”

 

Thomas alleges that all or nearly all the work Potts-Kant did during her eight years at Duke compromised grants worth $112.8 million to Duke and another $120.9 million to institutions like UNC-Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, the Herald-Sun said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/04/epa-funded-lab-faked-research-results-on-respiratory-illnesses-whistleblower-lawsuit-claims.html

 

Scientists serve those who pay them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas alleges that all or nearly all the work Potts-Kant did during her eight years at Duke compromised grants worth $112.8 million to Duke and another $120.9 million to institutions like UNC-Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, the Herald-Sun said.

Doesn't anyone realize that Duke needs those grants to pay off the Lacrosse coaches they wrongfully terminated. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is how science works:

 

EPA-funded lab faked research results on respiratory illnesses,

 

Duke University has admitted that one of its lab technicians falsified or fabricated research data on respiratory illnesses that were used to get large grants from the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

The admission came Sunday in legal filings that respond to a federal whistleblower lawsuit, which the school tried to get dismissed, by former lab analyst Joseph Thomas, according to the Durham Herald-Sun. Thomas claims in his lawsuit that the allegedly fake research data of Erin Potts-Kant, who worked eight years at a Duke medical school lab, was used by the prestigious university and some of its professors to fraudulently obtain federal grants. Thomas also claims Duke tried to hide the alleged fraud.

 

Potts-Kant told a Duke investigation panel, which reviewed 36 of her reports, her fake data was “included in various publications and grant applications.”

 

Thomas alleges that all or nearly all the work Potts-Kant did during her eight years at Duke compromised grants worth $112.8 million to Duke and another $120.9 million to institutions like UNC-Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, the Herald-Sun said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/04/epa-funded-lab-faked-research-results-on-respiratory-illnesses-whistleblower-lawsuit-claims.html

 

Scientists serve those who pay them.

If you can't believe the scientists, who do you you trust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't believe the scientists, who do you you trust?

Name one thing that a scientist has ever done to help me out. Please ignore the irony of me posting this on a powerful handheld computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name one thing that a scientist has ever done to help me out. Please ignore the irony of me posting this on a powerful handheld computer.

 

Don't scientists mess around with biological warfare? Nazis had scientists working around the clock too.

 

Should we trust those ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×