More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
What a buncha absolute C-R-A-P!
" Democrats and their allies have failed to persuade Americans that climate change is so serious that it warrants sweeping new political controls on American energy and industry. So liberals are trying to silence those who are winning the argument. We’re glad to see the dissenters aren’t intimidated."
You Ought to Have a Look: Intimidation in Science | Cato @ Liberty
You Ought to Have a Look: Intimidation in Science | Cato @ Liberty
""... it was one year ago today that I published a piece at FiveThirtyEight on that same research, which prompted a social and mainstream media campaign to have me fired for voicing such heresies. The Guardian, New York Times, Slate, Salon and even the American Geophysical Union all joined the campaign. Unsurprisingly, FiveThirtyEight succumbed to the pressure, explaining “>Reception< to the article ran about 80 percent negative in the >comments< section and on social media. A reaction like that compels us to think carefully about the piece and our editorial process.”
So, scientific consensus vs. Facebook likes - Guess who won?"
(^^^Red highlights = mine)
Of course, members of the 'C.C./G.W. faithful' will likely charge to the defense of FiveThirtyEight saying its decision was 'scientifically based/supported and completely sound'...or some such nonsense.
Watch...
Don't ya think there oughta be an "IMHO" after that, Larry?
oke:OK, so here's an opinion from a left-leaning, but not LIBERAL, interested observer...there are deaths every year from naturally occuring disasters, but a statistic that I would find interesting is a chart (where the hell is Jim C when you need him???) that shows how many "weather" related deaths are claimed for each year over a longitudinal study...if those deaths increase at a rate GREATER THAN THE GROWTH rate of the world population, then there's something to investigate there.
The earth goes through cyclic "heat-up/cool-down" climate changes, always has and always will. We need MORE scientists studying this phenomenon...and because we need the best we can get, considering the grave nature of ignoring what might be a terrible trend that could be a "extinction risk" for man, we need to pay them WAAAAY more than we have been just so that they are sure they get the data right.
There can't be any doubt about that.
Unless we want to continue to hide our heads in the sand and :dead:
OK, so there's more than a bit of tongue-in-cheek there....admittedly to see if all y'all rabid conservatives might read through something that you find objectionable just to see if there might be merit to the issue. Do I need to say "GOTCHA!"?
Cheers!
Doug
This is what a mind looks like on a lifetime of liberal crack;
Don't ya think there oughta be an "IMHO" after that, Larry?
OK, so here's an opinion from a left-leaning, but not LIBERAL, interested observer...there are deaths every year from naturally occuring disasters, but a statistic that I would find interesting is a chart (where the hell is Jim C when you need him???) that shows how many "weather" related deaths are claimed for each year over a longitudinal study...if those deaths increase at a rate GREATER THAN THE GROWTH rate of the world population, then there's something to investigate there.
The earth goes through cyclic "heat-up/cool-down" climate changes, always has and always will. We need MORE scientists studying this phenomenon...and because we need the best we can get, considering the grave nature of ignoring what might be a terrible trend that could be a "extinction risk" for man, we need to pay them WAAAAY more than we have been just so that they are sure they get the data right.
There can't be any doubt about that.
Unless we want to continue to hide our heads in the sand and :dead:
OK, so there's more than a bit of tongue-in-cheek there....admittedly to see if all y'all rabid conservatives might read through something that you find objectionable just to see if there might be merit to the issue. Do I need to say "GOTCHA!"?
Cheers!
Doug
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
I think a more accurate response would be that his post illustrates better critical thinking skill in supporting an opinion, rather than simply throwing out a quote and a link to site, whose article was rather confusing at best in that the quote has little relationship to the content of the study/funding/politics/public response relationship. Have you not even a shred of balance to see that both sides of this argument are subjected to the same type of intimidation noted in the article?
A perfect example would be Cruz' well-communicated bend toward only funding NASA projects that do not study global warming science. That's what I like in a leader (as Doug noted)...one that if he cannot stick his head in the sand, he will ensure he sticks everybody else's head in the sand.
The entire notion that there is no conservative intimidation of the sciences (which is what is implied by the quote from the article) supporting global warming by human activities is just too bizarre to comprehend.
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Here's another "climate change" loon who illustrates just how 'far out there' some of the backers of C.C./G.W. will go to come up with yet another 'consequence' of C.C./G.W. that requires strooooooooong GOVERNMENT ACTION to head off/prevent. In this case suggesting government should use “gender-sensitive frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.” (The only thing this dame leaves out is the admonition that anyone who voices opposition to her proposal is, by that action, a willing participant the "War on Women". She BLEW that opportunity. :annoyed:
House Dem Warns Climate Change Will Force Millions Of Poor Women To Engage In ‘Transactional Sex’ « CBS DC
An aside: I first saw this story on FOX...buuuuut, knowing any story reported by that network is automatically dismissed as "lies" by a couple of the C.C./G.W. 'faithful' around here (and lefties in general), I chose to 'source' CBS instead. 'Same story...'same quotes...buuuuuut, on FOX it's all LIES. :sneaky:
:House Dem Warns Climate Change Will Force Millions Of Poor Women To Engage In ‘Transactional Sex’ « CBS DC
An aside: I first saw this story on FOX...buuuuut, knowing any story reported by that network is automatically dismissed as "lies" by a couple of the C.C./G.W. 'faithful' around here (and lefties in general), I chose to 'source' CBS instead. 'Same story...'same quotes...buuuuuut, on FOX it's all LIES. :sneaky:
It will also cause giant bats to fly out of their butts, where the hell do these people come up with this garbage? Unfortunately there are those that will believe this.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Who votes for them is my question.
I think we know that.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I love this argument.
It's usually advanced by people who don't know the first fucking thing about the power business.
The per kilowatt per hour generation cost of hydro is the cheapest there is. ON shore wind is about the same as coal, off shore admittedly more expensive. Solar isn't cheap but it's less expensive than LNG or Nuke.
And please, without ANY google searching, list out for me the subsidies we have for:
1: REnewables; versus
2. PEtro products?
I'm in favor of a reasonable balance of nuke/fossil/renewables. But the absurd, ill informed reaction of the right to progress in new energy sources is laughably old mannish.
When the Germans power their grid with 80% renewables will you finally crap in your old man diapers?
It's usually advanced by people who don't know the first fucking thing about the power business.
The per kilowatt per hour generation cost of hydro is the cheapest there is. ON shore wind is about the same as coal, off shore admittedly more expensive. Solar isn't cheap but it's less expensive than LNG or Nuke.
And please, without ANY google searching, list out for me the subsidies we have for:
1: REnewables; versus
2. PEtro products?
I'm in favor of a reasonable balance of nuke/fossil/renewables. But the absurd, ill informed reaction of the right to progress in new energy sources is laughably old mannish.
When the Germans power their grid with 80% renewables will you finally crap in your old man diapers?
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
And before anyone gets their panties in a wad about my first post above and rude this or demeaning that, HERE is where it start.
I not only have a functioning bain, but I work in the power business and know that green energy products routinely make people very wealthy without taxpayer support.
So yeah, Larry's bullshit was a personal insult to ME. He doesn't get a free pass with his nonsense
Angry white guy jeff is howling again. Must be a full moon out tonight.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Facts is facts. If you view them as angry, that's your problem not mine.
