MMGW
-
Interesting food for thought:
-
It's presented as a partisan study - take of that what you will. But this guy has apparently been researching all "peer-reviewed climate articles" published throughout last year; that's about 2200 papers. Of those, he has found that only one rejects the idea of man-made climate change.
Disclaimers:
1) It's subjective. He is listing what he perceives as rejecting climate change. However, I think it's quite obvious to tell what a paper is saying from its abstract, conclusion etc and whether it falls in the Believer/Denier/Agnostic category.
2) It is talking about only those that reject climate change, not those that accept. So it may be that the remaining papers are split 50/50 on "it's real" or "we can't tell" - it may be 99/1 either way.
He does make a good point though:
To reiterate, I do not claim that X% of scientists accept anthropogenic global warming [AGW]. I say that of peer-reviewed articles under the topics “global warming and “global climate change,” only a tiny percentage reject AGW.
One thing we know with certainty is that if there were substantial evidence against AGW, it would surely have been published by now. One would not have to hunt for it. Thus I conclude that there is no convincing evidence against AGW.Anyway, I thought it was an interesting point on this topic. I really do wish he'd done a study on those that accept MMGW though. Perhaps he did, and perhaps it was the case that a very small amount accepted it. I suspect not, though.
-
Haven't you learned anything from this board? Scientists can't be trusted. They do nothing for us. They can't even cure the common cold. Who cares exist they think about scientific issues....
-
Haven't you learned anything from this board? Scientists can't be trusted. They do nothing for us. They can't even cure the common cold. Who cares exist they think about scientific issues....
Haven't you learned anything from this board? Scientists can't be trusted. They do nothing for us. They can't even cure the common cold. Who cares exist they think about scientific issues....
Because that's a constructive comment, and certainly not one that's going to lead to conversation like
"you're such a Retard woodrow, if scientists are like you why should I trust them"
"you're the Retard, science is right"
"nobody listen to woodypeckerhead, he's just a kid, he doesn't know anything"
"you guys are all such Retards"
and certainly it'll lead to a constructive debate about climate change (or whichever topic we happen to be discussing) where people actually learn things.
-
You have too much faith in this board. We have been down this path many times before. Many times before you showed up. Nothing changes. Cal isnt going to start agreeing with anyone no matter how damning the evidence or persuasive the science. It just is not going to happen.
I will make replies based on what is posted here. If we get intelligent responses, legitimate sources, etc etc, I will apply accordingly. For example, I will take whatever you say seriously and respond as such. You can only hear the same, baseless argument from a right wing blog as the source so many times. I would feel the same way if it was some bullshit from the far left. You can only try to respond productively some many times. I will even probably try to respond productively to the same god damn arguments in the future, only to see those threads dissolve quicker and quicker.
You can say that isnt a constructive comment, but that is literally what has been posted before. That is in essence what you will see if you look back and probably what will continue to be part of the responses. Also, you will see I have called no one a Retard in this thread. The hypocrisy with DieHard and Cal is what annoys me the most. One moment it is all " you dont post anything with content" " stop with the personal attacks" the next it is "stupid woodpeckerhead kid translation" "dumb picture/video" "stupid college kid" etc etc.
It gets old.
More power to you if you want to stick with a more serious debate structure. Hell, that sounds great. I feel like that would make it even easier to refute whatever claims they are making. But sadly, that isnt going to happen. So, go ahead and blame me partially for these "debates" not being constructive and where people dont "learn things" (cuz that is going to happen). I have been posting long enough where I will be cynic about some of the more seasoned posters. New guys, welcome aboard. I am more than happy to have actual discussions with. Cal, DieHard, the late Bunker... I have tried. I will probably try again. But I have a good idea where it will go
-
But sadly, woody, you got nothin. You just sit back and bitch about sources that you don't like.
and you've been doing that since you came on board, so your excuse that you are just "tired"
blah blah blah.
is worthless. Come up with your own backing for your own opinions, instead of just
bitching about people you don't agree with.
-
there ya go chris
-
Supposing MMGW is real and if unchecked will be responsible for our impending doom (I don't buy it, but let's just say it is for the sake of argument), what kind of policies would any of you propose that might realistically make a significant dent in the problem?
-
Immediately stop the destruction of the earth's vast virgin rainforests. Millions and millions of acres wiped out.
Doesn't make money for the UN, or the left, but ...
-
Supposing MMGW is real and if unchecked will be responsible for our impending doom (I don't buy it, but let's just say it is for the sake of argument), what kind of policies would any of you propose that might realistically make a significant dent in the problem?
That's the most important question and ironically enough the one most ignored by those on the left who scream the loudest. Not everything has an easy answer, ie taxes.Rob said:
Supposing MMGW is real and if unchecked will be responsible for our impending doom (I don't buy it, but let's just say it is for the sake of argument), what kind of policies would any of you propose that might realistically make a significant dent in the problem?
The closest we come here is variety of campaign advertisments imploring us to vote for their guy because, well, like, dude, he cares man.
WSS
-
And Cal is absolutely right. If we could somehow stop the destruction of the rainforest I think it would have a positive effect on our atmosphere. Unfortunately like with just about every worldwide solution, it is not up to the voters of the United States of America to decide. Every instance of third world countries coming into the 21st century economically will by its very nature create more pollution. You tell me how we explain to them that they are better off in the primitive stage of evolution. It's a drag but it's also a fact.
WSS
-
And Cal is absolutely right. If we could somehow stop the destruction of the rainforest I think it would have a positive effect on our atmosphere. Unfortunately like with just about every worldwide solution, it is not up to the voters of the United States of America to decide. Every instance of third world countries coming into the 21st century economically will by its very nature create more pollution. You tell me how we explain to them that they are better off in the primitive stage of evolution. It's a drag but it's also a fact.
WSS
And Cal is absolutely right. If we could somehow stop the destruction of the rainforest I think it would have a positive effect on our atmosphere. Unfortunately like with just about every worldwide solution, it is not up to the voters of the United States of America to decide. Every instance of third world countries coming into the 21st century economically will by its very nature create more pollution. You tell me how we explain to them that they are better off in the primitive stage of evolution. It's a drag but it's also a fact.
WSS
This. We can't hope to talk the rest of the developing world into taking it easy and not using fossil fuels. They have a growing middle class that will want to buy luxury items like cars, larger houses, etc. Nothing the first world says to them is going to stop them from wanting those things.
-
And Cal is absolutely right. If we could somehow stop the destruction of the rainforest I think it would have a positive effect on our atmosphere. Unfortunately like with just about every worldwide solution, it is not up to the voters of the United States of America to decide. Every instance of third world countries coming into the 21st century economically will by its very nature create more pollution. You tell me how we explain to them that they are better off in the primitive stage of evolution. It's a drag but it's also a fact.
WSS
This. We can't hope to talk the rest of the developing world into taking it easy and not using fossil fuels. They have a growing middle class that will want to buy luxury items like cars, larger houses, etc. Nothing the first world says to them is going to stop them from wanting those things.
This. We can't hope to talk the rest of the developing world into taking it easy and not using fossil fuels. They have a growing middle class that will want to buy luxury items like cars, larger houses, etc. Nothing the first world says to them is going to stop them from wanting those things.
Exactly. Go to some third world hell hole where a $10,000 dump in East Cleveland would be considered a palace and tell them to cut it the fuck out.
I would imagine that advice, coming from a country in which an illiterate thug who can throw a ball through a hoop earns more than their entire country's GDP, might not be taken all that seriously.
WSS
-
Absolutely, stopping the deforestation is a great start. And Steve, no not everything has an easy answer, and most especially something as complex as this. In addition to the stopping of deforestation, I'd make it compulsory to have solar panels on roofs; in most places, you can generally make yourself independent of the main power grid by just generally being efficient and having solar panels.
-
Compulsory? Solar panels, enough and efficient enough to run a holdhold off the grid?
Trust me, a whole lot of folks would never be able to afford it, and I'm not sure manufacturing all those
solar panels wouldn't backfire to the opposite effect. A nice panel is expensive, to only power a 60 watt
bulb.
Nah. Not a legit partial solution to much.
-
Yep, obviously it's expensive, and so you can't just tell people to pay the 20k or whatever it is to put them on the house. Government money would be needed, as well as probably having them available at cost price, rather than being run as a profitable company. Yeah, it's not in line with my usual capitalist views, but needs must.
-
Read http://www.buzzfeed.com/drewphilp/why-i-bought-a-house-in-detroit-for-500 and notice how an individual (or group of individuals) is/are doing their part to revitalize a community (with some "going green" thrown in for fun) contrasts with how the government a.) fucked up the 1st time and b.)will be fucking up again with regards to "revitalization"
Then ask yourself why you think government, or taxation is the answer to MMGW or MMCC? If you can read that article, then sit down and sincerely believe governmental control is the best option, then you deserve to have your legs beaten.
Read http://www.buzzfeed.com/drewphilp/why-i-bought-a-house-in-detroit-for-500 and notice how an individual (or group of individuals) is/are doing their part to revitalize a community (with some "going green" thrown in for fun) contrasts with how the government a.) fucked up the 1st time and b.)will be fucking up again with regards to "revitalization"
Then ask yourself why you think government, or taxation is the answer to MMGW or MMCC? If you can read that article, then sit down and sincerely believe governmental control is the best option, then you deserve to have your legs beaten.
this^ there has been ZERO activity on job creation and without which the discussion on how to best spend tax dollars on green alternatives is totally innane.
Im all for responsible environmental conservation, and Im all for tech advancement in renewables and the training needed to get / keep people employed.
But when are people who are massing in the unemployed columns going to get back to work? huh Barry?
I miss Big Business over Big Government - but to borrow a tired expression, "I didnt vote for this guy"
-
Government money would be needed, as well as probably having them available at cost price, rather than being run as a profitable company.
****************************
What gov money? We are already at or headed towards 17 TRILLION FREAKIN DOLLARS IN DEBT ?
Our United States of America has a population of 316,668,567 . You going to take over a company
or put the gov in the solar panel biz? Seriously?
All sorts of states have a very, very long rate of return on the investment.
Now, multiply our population by say, only $10,000. I'm pretty sure you'll get 3,166,685,670,000.
Now, just double that by your closer estimate of 20,000, and you have to laugh at the idea.
And the cost of the gov going into the biz? Startup costs have been tried with the investment
with Solyndra. That plundered into failure...
That's assuming that all houses would be generally the same in size and energy requirements,
which everybody knows in nonsense.
More likely - cut spending and offer tax credits to homeowners if they buy any size solar panel outfit,
for lighting. That's all. That wouldn't cost so much, no expenditure (but less in taxes), a lot less drain
on the grid overall.
But gearing all households with the solar power to handle microwaves, fridges, freezers, computers, tv's, radios,
dishwashers, ovens clock, lights, well pumps, furnaces, air conditioning, elevators (house down the road has one, really),
farm equipment in the barn, all sorts of other appliances.... with solar power? Seriously? It would take a lot, lot
more than any 20 grand. Bunch of pie in the sky nonsense.
Of course, all liberals could just unplug from the grid completely, and live like they did in the George Washington days.
Oil wick lamps, and coal/wood stoves. That's all you really need. And it is so much for the environment.
You go first. The rest of America will "think about it". Come on, Chris - let's not go too utopian here.
-
furthermore,
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-R----R---R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-H-H-H-H-H- !!!!!
-
Absolutely, stopping the deforestation is a great start. And Steve, no not everything has an easy answer, and most especially something as complex as this. In addition to the stopping of deforestation, I'd make it compulsory to have solar panels on roofs; in most places, you can generally make yourself independent of the main power grid by just generally being efficient and having solar panels.
Well forcing every American household to install solar panels probably isn't going to happen. I think you're talking as a dictator as opposed to an elected official. But sure that would help if everybody in the USA, or even Great Britain where they apparently care more about this than we do, would have solar panels on the roof. I don't think it would be a bad idea to have more wind power. I don't think it would be a bad idea to convert automobiles buses trucks etc to natural gas.Absolutely, stopping the deforestation is a great start. And Steve, no not everything has an easy answer, and most especially something as complex as this. In addition to the stopping of deforestation, I'd make it compulsory to have solar panels on roofs; in most places, you can generally make yourself independent of the main power grid by just generally being efficient and having solar panels.
But I think the idealists, or Pollyanna's if you choose, ard being realistic when you overlook the fact that this, if it's going to be addressed at all, is a global problem. If co2 emissions need to be halted, yes halted, then a small reduction by the United States really does nothing compared to the emerging third world.
And I realize some people are offended when I say I just don't care that much about solutions that will do almost nothing. Just do something seems to be the mantra.
You may be better off in a car crash if you are wearing clean underwear but... Flip? Sure but given the research that says we have to drastically reduce or stop the emissions worldwide should make it pretty obvious that tiny steps buy a small portion of the world isn't going to help. The same goes for all those people who shout about man made global warming who refuse to take any steps on their own, and yes woody, I'm talking about you guys. And you are correct. If you sell your car and bicycle everywhere it won't really make a difference to the Worlds climate. But as you are so fond of saying why can't you just try??? It would be a little help wouldn't it?
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login