Thread: Science project Oil and shutting up the tree huggers for good.

Originally Posted by Cebelius

All this? Really? Just for an article about alternative sources for oil and a tongue in cheek video about how environmentally irresponsible pet owners are?

Christ people.

For those of you hanging your hats on environmental science... let's take a look at just ONE of their previous... predictions:

ASIA UN panel now says Himalayan glaciers may not disappear by 2035 - Asia News

One notable quote, if you're not in the mood to read the article itself is: Georg Kaser, from the University of Innsbruck in Austria, had warned that the 2035 figure was wrong, “so wrong that it is not even worth discussing”.

Yet this went into the official UN IPCC report... and they're supposed to be the world body that governments take their queues from with regard to treaty and legal obligations.

It's farcical. Really.

Oh, and still not guilty petting my dog or firing up the truck. Or eating steak and supporting the ranchers who are polluting our air with the flatus of millions of cattle.

Environuts who think that governments can be bullied into forcing changes upon their citizens for some environmental abstraction... yeah. It's a joke, just not the funny kind.

So now you are getting mad at scientists for removing bad data from a report? So what should they do when make an error? Stay the course? or reflect the newly realized data and change the model?

Also, it's not the cows farts... that is actually extant carbon (cows eat plants, not coal or oil ... then again, methane is a stronger greenhouse gas by many orders of magnitude than CO, CO2, but still, it is extant and will break down). The problem is not eating meat either. The problem is gluttonous Americans want beef in such non-realistic proportions that the waste stream and water consumption (consider the crops these animals eat) causes real and measurable environmental damage. Right here you prove you don't even understand the basics of climate change. Clearly, you don't know enough about these sorts of problems to feel guilty.

Environuts simply don't want to waste more tax dollars cleaning up ignorant gluttons messes or endanger future resources for Americans and other peoples. You appear to be shoving your cow shit and exhaust down my throat; who is paying for that?

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

So now you are getting mad at scientists for removing bad data from a report? So what should they do when make an error? Stay the course? or reflect the newly realized data and change the model?

Also, it's not the cows farts... that is actually extant carbon (cows eat plants, not coal or oil ... then again, methane is a stronger greenhouse gas by many orders of magnitude than CO, CO2, but still, it is extant and will break down). The problem is not eating meat either. The problem is gluttonous Americans want beef in such non-realistic proportions that the waste stream and water consumption (consider the crops these animals eat) causes real and measurable environmental damage. Right here you prove you don't even understand the basics of climate change. Clearly, you don't know enough about these sorts of problems to feel guilty.

Environuts simply don't want to waste more tax dollars cleaning up ignorant gluttons messes or endanger future resources for Americans and other peoples. You appear to be shoving your cow shit and exhaust down my throat; who is paying for that?

I am glad they are correcting, but prior to the correction we were told it was fact that this would happen. I mean we had the science to prove it, but wait, we don't. Yes, now it changes, but what if in 1, 5, 10 it changes again, and pushes it out further? Maybe it will, and maybe the ice caps all melt next week, I am not saying for certain one way or the other, but many have argued that the science may not be accurate and were called "unintelligent" I believe the word was for it. Now, do any of you that believed the science that was WRONG care to come back and admit that you, and your well trained scientists, are "unintelligent"?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Well, this particular case wasn't about bad science, but about bad reporting. The 2035 figure was never in a published paper. But yes, you're right, in any real science, conclusions change as new data arrives. This doesn't mean, though, that ideas are radically shifting, willy nilly, as you seem to suggest. In general, data converges on truths, so over time, though adjustments may be made, those adjustments get smaller and smaller, as the bigger picture becomes closer and closer to the truth.

So if someone disagrees with science that is later proven wrong what would YOU call that person? My guess is when they were disagreeing you would call them "unintelligent", and when they were later proven right I am sure they would still be "unintelligent" to you, but the science portion was just recalculated, right?

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

So now you are getting mad at scientists for removing bad data from a report? So what should they do when make an error? Stay the course? or reflect the newly realized data and change the model?

I would love it if they removed the data, but thats not what happened. They continued to shop for research that came to conclusions that fit their agenda, as noble as it might be, with admittedly "limited science".

This article is dated January of 2010, and no one is questioning the credibility of the the 4 glaciologists, which leads me to believe there is some solid science behind their findings.
ASIA UN panel now says Himalayan glaciers may not disappear by 2035 - Asia News

Now 11 months into the future there is this:
Himalayan glaciers are melting, says IPCC research - Telegraph

In an effort to move on from the embarrassing episode, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, has now announced that the latest statistics show the glaciers are melting, according to the limited amount of science available.

It screams of "i dont like your science, so i will find someone with findings that i agree with, even if the fundamentals of their findings are possibly lacking....."

Like this from the earlier article:

The IPCC’s practices were also challenged in a series of stories based on e-mails stolen from computer servers of the University of East Anglia in England and posted worldwide last year that showed climate researchers discussed keeping some scientific papers out of the IPCC report.

Personally, i want the truth. Preferably derived from the most current and reliable science. I can accept if it doesn't agree with my preconceived notions, and i'd like to think most people can when presented with solid evidence. That still doesn't mean that we need to have closed minds to the possibility that things aren't as we see them. If that were the case, the world would still be flat.

Now Scott, questioning the facts that scientists deliver us just makes you an unintelligent dolt. Just open your mouth while we spoon feed you what you must believe in order to be accepted as intelligent by your peers.


Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

The thing I find most odd about this is the belief that we in the United States have any real practical influence on human influenced levels of CO2 output.

Consider that we as a nation are largely post-industrial. Consider too that the worst offenders worldwide in terms of pollution are second world countries just now coming into their own. In order for us to have a definite impact we would have to fundamentally change just about every aspect of our cultural mores and behavior.

We would not only have to change our own regional consumption of both food products and output, we would have to stop, not slow, stop, our trade with nations that have little or no interest at all in maintaining the environment. China and India come readily to mind. Here's an article on how much the Chinese care about environmental concerns and working conditions... visavis its largest Apple supply chain link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/bu...pagewanted=all

But don't worry, there's good news. The people who generated this wasteful culture are in fact on the decline and all signs indicate that we won't be around for much longer. Just about every nation in the world that could be considered "Western" is dying out, their numbers augmented not by new births, but by migration. The people who created this society of waste and freedom will doubtless be dead or statistically insignificant within the next 200 years or so, which, environmentally speaking, is the blink of an eye.

Take heart environuts. You won't have to change our minds... we'll quite literally die first.
https://pop.org/content/fertility-de...rn-europe-1727
Fertility and Mortality in the United States | Economic History Services
Sub-replacement fertility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relax. Two hundred years from now western democracies and all their attendant environmental problems will be history.