Pages: 1 … 4 5 6

 

2010-05-26 08:14:08
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6906|London, England

11 Bravo wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:


the climate scientists who make over 6 figures scaring people...
So all the people who talk about climate change are the rich scientists with alternative agendas. All the people who are against it are the poor scientists who are genuine, is that how you see it?
both sides are bollocks.  both sides have financial gain either way.
So who are you listening to and believing in then, yourself? Glen Beck? Clearly your belief that man made climate change is bs is stemming from somewhere, you've already admitted that it's not the realm of science. But it must be somewhere.

What I'm saying is, answers like "my gut feeling" or "glen beck" don't really work outside of your own mind... if that's the way you're going to present your argument, well it's not much.
2010-05-26 08:14:15
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX

11 Bravo wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

the climate scientists who make over 6 figures scaring people...
So all the people who talk about climate change are the rich scientists with alternative agendas. All the people who are against it are the poor scientists who are genuine, is that how you see it?
both sides are bollocks.  both sides have financial gain either way.
So no-ones opinion on anything can ever be valid because somewhere, somehow they could have a financial interest.

Or not - if they are academics on tenure.

Strangely the oil and coal industries have huge incentives to disprove the theory but have yet to find anyone with a convincing argument.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-26 08:15:34)

Fuck Israel
2010-05-26 08:16:21
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6906|London, England
I'm all for people dismissing man made climate change but not when they can't do it in any reasonable manner. I think that's the key thing. Yes there have been scandals and such involving scientists and climate change, but there also hasn't been much on the anti-climate change front except for "you're wrong" and "it's a conspiracy" and "glen beck tells the truth"
2010-05-26 08:17:39
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

Mekstizzle wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:


So all the people who talk about climate change are the rich scientists with alternative agendas. All the people who are against it are the poor scientists who are genuine, is that how you see it?
both sides are bollocks.  both sides have financial gain either way.
So who are you listening to and believing in then, yourself? Glen Beck? Clearly your belief that man made climate change is bs is stemming from somewhere, you've already admitted that it's not the realm of science. But it must be somewhere.

What I'm saying is, answers like "my gut feeling" or "glen beck" don't really work outside of your own mind... if that's the way you're going to present your argument, well it's not much.
im not trying to present anything.  since there is so much BS on both sides, and people are getting loaded rich off this green shit, i choose to ignore it.
2010-05-26 08:20:49
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6906|London, England

11 Bravo wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:


both sides are bollocks.  both sides have financial gain either way.
So who are you listening to and believing in then, yourself? Glen Beck? Clearly your belief that man made climate change is bs is stemming from somewhere, you've already admitted that it's not the realm of science. But it must be somewhere.

What I'm saying is, answers like "my gut feeling" or "glen beck" don't really work outside of your own mind... if that's the way you're going to present your argument, well it's not much.
im not trying to present anything.  since there is so much BS on both sides, and people are getting loaded rich off this green shit, i choose to ignore it.
You never talk about how trying to disprove mmgw is bullshit, you only talk about how mmgw is bullshit. That places you firmly in the climate change deniers... but if you say that you think they're both full of shit, ok, just that I never see you tell people who say "climate change is a conspiracy" that they're talking a load of BS, compared to how many times you yell at people for saying the opposite.
2010-05-26 08:22:27
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio
same goes for everything on here, Mek.  israel arguments for example.  i know the green side is fear mongering to get rich, therefore i think they are worse.
2010-05-26 08:24:18
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6906|London, England
Yeah I think all that green shit is stupid too, carbon tax credits and all that crap. But my opinion on MMGW isn't affected by all of that. I'd rather cut the bullshit out and see the real deal rather than just cut it all out, and then join the ignorant crowd who have nothing to say or prove except their own ignorance.

And if you really want to get into the whole "rich people bad" argument, what about all the big oil companies. You do realise they do alot to fund the anti-global warming campaigns. It's just as bad on the other side anyway.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2010-05-26 08:25:19)

2010-05-26 08:25:33
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

Mekstizzle wrote:

Yeah I think all that green shit is stupid too, carbon tax credits and all that crap. But my opinion on MMGW isn't affected by all of that. I'd rather cut the bullshit out and see the real deal rather than just cut it all out, and then join the ignorant crowd who have nothing to say or prove except their own ignorance.
without knowing if something is fact or not for sure, how can you say one way or another?  if you want wiki links and quote trees try lowing or turq.
2010-05-26 08:26:38
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

11 Bravo wrote:

aint weather a byproduct of climate?
Weather is a heavily complicated, dynamic effect of quite a few factors, all of which we still probably cannot identify. 

The resurgence of study in chaos theory was brought on by attempts to predict weather with computer models.  If you change the initial conditions in weather models by what seems to be an insignificant amount, you get drastically different results.  Thus the whole "Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?".

Climatology is probably in the same boat, but it does not care about local (temporary) extremes, but rather the behavior over a long period.  Like the pic below, meteorology is like predicting the small variances that exist all over, whereas climatology is like seeing the overall sine wave.

https://www.senortoenails.com/bf2s/sine.png

Note:  I just made that function up, so don't read any further into it than what I said.
2010-05-26 08:31:38
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6906|London, England

11 Bravo wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Yeah I think all that green shit is stupid too, carbon tax credits and all that crap. But my opinion on MMGW isn't affected by all of that. I'd rather cut the bullshit out and see the real deal rather than just cut it all out, and then join the ignorant crowd who have nothing to say or prove except their own ignorance.
without knowing if something is fact or not for sure, how can you say one way or another?  if you want wiki links and quote trees try lowing or turq.
Well I've seen enough to lean towards it. Nothing is ever sure or not sure. My logic doesn't work like yours though, where if I was to be unsure about something that means I would place myself firmly in the camp of "it's gotta be bullshit" - which is rather hypocritical, because you've then made your mind up as to whether you're sure or not.
2010-05-26 08:37:25
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

Mekstizzle wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Yeah I think all that green shit is stupid too, carbon tax credits and all that crap. But my opinion on MMGW isn't affected by all of that. I'd rather cut the bullshit out and see the real deal rather than just cut it all out, and then join the ignorant crowd who have nothing to say or prove except their own ignorance.
without knowing if something is fact or not for sure, how can you say one way or another?  if you want wiki links and quote trees try lowing or turq.
Well I've seen enough to lean towards it. Nothing is ever sure or not sure. My logic doesn't work like yours though, where if I was to be unsure about something that means I would place myself firmly in the camp of "it's gotta be bullshit" - which is rather hypocritical, because you've then made your mind up as to whether you're sure or not.
i dont care enough to care strongly either way.  i try the easy way...follow the money.  and the money is flowing in both directions.

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-05-27 02:35:28)

2010-05-26 15:17:07
Noobeater
Northern numpty
+194|6732|Boulder, CO
Just thought that I would point this bit of observation out here.

The actual climatologists at my uni here (a good environmental science research uni.) really don't make it their business to care about the politics involved, they don't actually change any form of data or are afraid to submit any form of data to a journal or other body based on what it could possibly do to their funding. Though I can honestly say that no scientist would get their funding from a research uni cut based on their findings disagreeing with those of others, in fact it would be more likely that they would be given more money to do further research and find out why their findings didn't agree with pre existing ones.

The scientists in the UK at least have no reason to alter data or to withhold any form of data based upon the views of others, they don't give a toss, they don't need to give a toss. They know that no matter what view their data supports so long as its well measured and methodologically sound data then they have nothing to ever fear from. If however you were to get someone producing shoddy data (regardless of what it suggestsed or supports) then it would just get ripped to utter shreds when they try to publish it due to the peer reviewed system that means that scientists the world over are permanently checking each others information before its published.

To sum it up.

The flow of money in science doesn't make any real difference to the beliefs and ideals of scientists, just because they have access to more money they won't change their data or ideals. If they have their funding cut then they'll try to do as best as they can whilst being truthful on the cheap. This is especially true in government institutes and research universities.

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard