Quote: @greediron said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ greediron said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
Sorry Greed but first using “Plandemic” as a source and then using the Faucci Bill Gates angle is looney fucking tunes. My girlfriend has been in healthcare for 15 years and it’s maddening to read the amount if idiots that believe any of the shit from Plandemic.
Plandemic is fucking nonsense, debunked horse shit. I am not even going to go into that one because it would be 10 pages of debunking everything.
Secondly, Gates. Largest philanthropist in the country and a real billionaire unlike Trump, who steals from his own charity. But you think this is a “follow the money” type scenario from one of the world’s most charitable human beings.
Well do your research and follow the money. First off when Fauci did have to register a patent for a discovery of a vaccination back in early 2000’s, per federal law, he was in fact paid for it. Over the next 10-15 years he made total royalties of $46,000. If I remember correctly he donated it to charity.
So these 2 evil masterminds who are not motivated by greed, but genuinely want to help people, are going to try and fuck over the American people for financial gain?
BULLSHIT.
Sorry but just because we all know that’s what Trump would do, doesn’t mean that’s everyone else’s motivations.
It’s a virus, something we have never seen before. Very hard to predict, the speed, the transmission, the mortality rate. Has Fauci been wrong in some early hypotheses and predictions? Absolutely. Does that mean we should stop trusting him, or make him less qualified to be in his position? Fuck no.
The speed at which some of you latch onto unproven conspiracy theories from disgraced nutjobs and question the actions of dedicated scientists is fucking amazing. We can’t get half of you to believe in the science and research behind climate change, but you can watch one wackadoodle with a youtube video throwing Fauci under the bus and you’re all in.
God help us.
Sorry, I don't take your opinion serious either. So carry on, live in fear, believe what they feed you. I won't bother to respond since the little I read of your response has any relevance to my opinion.
But yes, God help us.
So you are the one who is quoting a youtube source who falsified the data in her experiments, is a joke in the medical community, who claims Fauci and Gates are using Americans as guinea pigs in some money making scheme ...
and then you tell me “you don’t take my opinion serious“ that this dumb bitch’s wackjob video has been debunked and to “carry on, live in fear, believe what they feed you”.
I would try to explain the concept of irony as clearly it’s totally lost on you, but I don’t think pictures, crayons and small words are going to help.
Show me the evidence of the money trail you suggested. That was your premise: this is a nefarious money making scheme by two guys who IMO clearly don’t seem to care about money, but by all means - prove your opinion. Did you follow the money? Where did it lead?
Or did you find it was a dead-end nothingburger and you’re too chicken-shit to admit the truth?
I didn't quote anything that I can see. I referenced that video as something to look at.
And no, I have plenty of research, I just choose to ignore you. Your approach is so asinine and I don't feel the need to feed a troll.
Ahhh ... so we are going with the “I know the answer, but I’m not going to tell you and just ignore you” defense.
Cool!
I remember that tactic in 2nd grade when I was caught trying to explain something I had no fucking clue about either.
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
@ pumpf said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
The speed at which some of you latch onto unproven conspiracy theories from disgraced nutjobs and question the actions of dedicated scientists is fucking amazing. We can’t get half of you to believe in the science and research behind climate change, but you can watch one wackadoodle with a youtube video throwing Fauci under the bus and you’re all in.
God help us.
Using "climate change" as an example of "settled science" (that is "fact" beyond all reasonable doubt) probably is why so many people are willing to accept conspiracy theories. Despite being told- over and over again- that it is a "fact", reasonable people- who are willing to be skeptical and do some actual "research" on their own- can easily arrive at a different conclusion. And since the most basic question regarding "climate change" can't be answered ("How much- a specific percentage- of the "change" can be directly attributed to man?"), I think it's reasonable to question the conclusions.
Again, reasonable people might be able to agree that the climate is "changing", because the earth's climate has been recorded as "changing" in the past. So that's not really the issue. The issue is whether or not the "change" is actually bad... and whether or not it is man-made. Those are questions that have not been answered in a factual manner. Scientific theories are predicated on making predictions and then seeing whether or not those predictions come true. So far, none of the fact-based predictions have been proven to be true. Yet half the country calls it "settled science". No wonder people are wary of "science" and "experts"!
It's no different than the "news": when people start to realize that "journalists" have a bias (no matter what it may be) and that their bias is evident in what they report (or choose not to report), reasonable people start to wonder if they can even trust those journalists.
If people want trust to be given to "scientists" and "journalists", then those entities have to earn it by being honest, no matter what the cost to their own personal ideologies. Until that happens, you're going to continue to have people believing conspiracy theories. Sadly, most of the people who are active on social media are more than happy to accept dishonesty- as long as it benefits their side. Case in point: the coverage of Kavanaugh vs. Biden. They were clearly handled differently by different "news" outlets... and it was not because one claim was more credible than the other.
In summary: you reap what you sow. If you traffic in dishonesty, don't be surprised when people don't trust you.
Nowhere did I use the term as “settled science” or “fact”.
I said we can’t get you to believe in the science and research behind it. How is it that the vast majority of scientists from all over the world arrive at the same conclusion? They are all in on this?
Climate change is ongoing, has been happening for millions of years.
What is constantly left out of the discussion by the climate science deniers is that it is the rate of change that is alarming. When ecosystems have tens of thousands of years to adapt to change that’s one thing. When it happens over a century or even decades, that’s a whole new ball game. So what soed up the rate of change? I suppose the population explosion, industrial revolution, and skyrocketing pollution are just one big fucking inconvenient coincidence that since we can’t assign a % to its contribution, we should just disregard it completely?
And yet you devoted your life to believe in a faith that can’t be proven if God even exists .... and with the Catholic church’s sullied reputation of kiddy molesting and then protecting the molestors from arrest, don’t be surprised when people don’t trust you.
No wonder people are weary of pastors.
Ironic, no?
Pumpf is a Lutheran Minister, but nice bait though.
And nobody on the anti global warming crusade on these boards has ever denied climate change, in fact most of us have shown, countless times, plenty of data that supports climate change. Change that includes trends in all directions that are counter to the scare tactics employed by gore and his crying band of hypocrites. It's called weather and it's been changing for centuries, the only questions are to what degree man affects it and to what degree all the money, taxes, and stupid regulations, that are thrown at it will ever help.
Jimmy, small correction, weather and climate are two different things, it's hard to learn apples when all you are thinking is oranges. Its like saying gas and diesel are the same, they are used to run cars, two different systems, confusion is costly.
Quote: @medaille said:
One thing I can’t unsee anymore is how people will readily
talk about experts and we should have faith in experts when the conversation
centers around experts they agree with, but as soon as the conversation centers
around the experts they don’t agree with the expert isn’t an expert anymore,
but a shill for someone else, or a quack, or not a real . Just look at your facebook feed right now,
and find all the examples of “experts” claiming things and then the otherside
trivializing their credentials and worthiness to be an expert, but than also
posting some crap article that parrots their opinion, has an “expert” in it
that tells you what to think, but not why they think it. The news article will be 2 pages long and
there will be 98% the authors opinion, supported by about 2-3 partial quotes,
where the expert is mostly just name dropped for the sake of bolstering their
opinion.
You should read the packer board. They are always spouting off about how great they are and us faithful Viking fans know full well theyre nothing but a bunch of goat lovers.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
Jimmy, small correction, weather and climate are two different things, it's hard to learn apples when all you are thinking is oranges. Its like saying gas and diesel are the same, they are used to run cars, two different systems, confusion is costly.
I know they are different, but in the way I was using it, they are the same. it was the alarmist in the 70s freaking over cooling, those same people freaking in the 2000s about it getting warmer. Not denying that changes occur, just not going to agree that the bull shit being used to destroy industries and jobs in the US have much affect on the climate vs what they are doing to families in the US. I think the deforestation of South America, the lack of any pollution control in Asia and other 3rd world countries would be a great thing to focus on, but killing affordable energy in the US and putting thousands of Americans out of work in the process is a scam and a money grab. Warren Buffet has said it himself, the only reason to invest in that stuff was for the production tax credits, on its own its a bad investment.
I am all for clean air, as long as its done smartly, to ignore the blatant enviromental abuses around the globe, and then to target already clean power plants and other gas and coal facilities here in the US is wrong for Americans, and is completely short sighted. American ranchers have been asking for decades for country of origin meat labeling but the elected in DC wont do it, mean while the rain forest in SA gets destroyed to make room for more cattle and grain operation so they can keep pushing more cheap meat and grains into the world markets. if this was really about saving the environment, why wouldnt the politicians in DC, especially the climate change alarmist be pushing for laws that would make those South American exports less marketable which would slow the deforestation down there? I am sure there are plenty of other things they could be doing to try and save the world without having to always target those in the US that are already being regulated out of the market. Hell how about putting carbon taxes on the products that are being produced in the inferior factories and that are coming out of countries that are still using power plants that dont meet the US coal plant output requirements instead of raising the bar higher and higher here in the US and putting more and more Americans out of work and then charging more for the replacement product?
This isnt all in response to you Al, just a small rant against the way some want to try and "clean up" our world.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ Skodin said:
There is zero wrong with being a contrarian. One of the greatest minds of our generation wrote a book on how to be young contrarian. Contrarian doesn’t mean be an asshole. Latching on to wildly speculative theories with ulterior motives for global domination and using that as a reason to justify actions putting others at increased health risk is being an asshole.
I would like the board experts here in climate change to explain how climate change happens, actually happens, understanding the thermodynamics, glacial-interglacial cyclical eras, the molecular structure of GHG gases, solar albedo, functions of surface temperature, and most importantly how 95% of scientists are wrong. The same data understanding that we all take for granted in understanding our daily temperature, seasonal variety, etc, is the back bone for this same climate science.
I am currently enrolled in a program at MIT for Climate Science, not policy, but the understanding of the science of CO2 and worst, CH4. Understanding the different periods of changing climate on earth and why heat currently gets trapped inside our atmosphere. When taken from a scientific breakdown, it seems quite obvious on why the planet is getting warmer, humans exacerbate the problem by production.
What stake people have in denying CC speaks more about them versus the nature of the science.
In science, everything this a theory. Gravity is theory, feel free to disprove it.
With respect to your expertise in these matters, can you answer the questions that I alluded to previously?
- If the climate "changed" in the past (before the Industrial Revolution), what caused it?
- What percentage of CC (that is happening now) can be attributed to man vs. the factors that, previously, caused it (in the past)?
- Is there evidence for CC on other planets? I've read that there is, but I would prefer to hear it from someone who actually studies this stuff.
- If there is (CC on other planets), what is the cause? Is it similar to the causes for CC in our planet's history?
These are questions for which I've never heard any answers. So if you could help, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
These are legit questions, which I can address in greater detail later. But quickly 3 and 4, is it possible sure, I haven’t delved into what other planets systems are like because frankly I don’t live on other planets. Here is something that is mind blowing, what we see when we see in Jupiter isn’t this big floating rock, the surface being what is visible, but realistically a large ball of thick gas. Regarding previous cyclical changes, absolutely they have happened, I will be glad to give a better explanation of the history later on, but outside of the baseline changes, we can see that humans are producing a staggering amount of CO2 and CH4 above the earth’s baseline which is exacerbating the issue.
Think about CC like this. Currently solar radiation moves from the sun to the US. Some of it is absorbed, some of it reflected. Reflection depends on numerous things, say white surfaces vs black surfaces as an example. That heat is reflected back into the atmosphere, most importantly the two strata above us. With a layer of green house gases in the initial two layers what it does it stop that heat from full releasing away from the sun. It reflects in many different directions, also being absorbed by cloud layers etc, sending heat back into the earth and ocean. This GHG layer traps this heat between the GHG layer and the earth, increasing the amount the surface cooks. Now why CO2 and particularly CH4, their Global warming potential is based on their molecular structure, how thick they are compared to the rest of the strata made up O and N. CH4 is 20X more challenging for the heat radiation to pass through than CO2 due to its molecular structure.
These are simple examples that have fascinating details, but just from these 3 practices you can get the gist.
CH4 can be released by the earth in many ways, but is an exacerbated issue by let’s choose 3 human practices:
1) Livestock
Just the number of ruminants we have created due to human consumption is a staggering number. Not only is the number of animals a massive number but the amount of CH4 they release in belching is frightening. Estimates say an average cow will produce 90kg of CH4 annually, multiply that number 1.5 billion plus livestock every year, the CH4 non necessary production is significant. Instead of the abolishment of livestock for food, groups are working various feedstock technologies to lower the amount of methane produced from the stomach chambers of these animals.
2) Coal/Fossil Fuel extraction from the earth
This one is kind of a no brainer, but as an example in room and pillar coal extraction in places Kentucky, gasses will work through the various strata of the earth looking for a place to move. With this, they can fill these chambers, which have pressure vents, leading to the escape of Ch4 layers beneath the earth actively being sent into the atmosphere. A good example of managing this would be a regular local landfill with the organic processes of the layers deep of garbage needing a release, they vent, monitor, and flare the Ch4 before leaving the atmosphere.
3) Rice paddies
Rice production globally accounts for a considerable amount of CH4 being released into the atmosphere. When rice paddies are flooded in current practice, the organic digestion that takes place between the soil and water bakes up CH4. Think a diluted waste water treatment/anaerobic digestion system. There are practices to limit or lower these CH4 production spots through active wetting/drying/dry seeding practices, but currently there are very little regarding incentivized protocols associated with switching practices.
I am not professing to be an expert on these matters, my MIT professors would be better suited for that, but it is fascinating to understand the basic science behind this issue. I’d be glad to discuss more if anyone else would like to.
Quote: @medaille said:
One thing I can’t unsee anymore is how people will readily
talk about experts and we should have faith in experts when the conversation
centers around experts they agree with, but as soon as the conversation centers
around the experts they don’t agree with the expert isn’t an expert anymore,
but a shill for someone else, or a quack, or not a real . Just look at your facebook feed right now,
and find all the examples of “experts” claiming things and then the otherside
trivializing their credentials and worthiness to be an expert, but than also
posting some crap article that parrots their opinion, has an “expert” in it
that tells you what to think, but not why they think it. The news article will be 2 pages long and
there will be 98% the authors opinion, supported by about 2-3 partial quotes,
where the expert is mostly just name dropped for the sake of bolstering their
opinion.
There just may be a clue about using facebook feeds as a source for information. Dumped facebook 4 years ago and don't feel any dumber for it. Just the analytics and the opportunities for marketing fringe crap, it has all the appeal of the varied industries building at the state fair. Entertaining but rarely usefull.
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
@ greediron said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ greediron said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
Sorry Greed but first using “Plandemic” as a source and then using the Faucci Bill Gates angle is looney fucking tunes. My girlfriend has been in healthcare for 15 years and it’s maddening to read the amount if idiots that believe any of the shit from Plandemic.
Plandemic is fucking nonsense, debunked horse shit. I am not even going to go into that one because it would be 10 pages of debunking everything.
Secondly, Gates. Largest philanthropist in the country and a real billionaire unlike Trump, who steals from his own charity. But you think this is a “follow the money” type scenario from one of the world’s most charitable human beings.
Well do your research and follow the money. First off when Fauci did have to register a patent for a discovery of a vaccination back in early 2000’s, per federal law, he was in fact paid for it. Over the next 10-15 years he made total royalties of $46,000. If I remember correctly he donated it to charity.
So these 2 evil masterminds who are not motivated by greed, but genuinely want to help people, are going to try and fuck over the American people for financial gain?
BULLSHIT.
Sorry but just because we all know that’s what Trump would do, doesn’t mean that’s everyone else’s motivations.
It’s a virus, something we have never seen before. Very hard to predict, the speed, the transmission, the mortality rate. Has Fauci been wrong in some early hypotheses and predictions? Absolutely. Does that mean we should stop trusting him, or make him less qualified to be in his position? Fuck no.
The speed at which some of you latch onto unproven conspiracy theories from disgraced nutjobs and question the actions of dedicated scientists is fucking amazing. We can’t get half of you to believe in the science and research behind climate change, but you can watch one wackadoodle with a youtube video throwing Fauci under the bus and you’re all in.
God help us.
Sorry, I don't take your opinion serious either. So carry on, live in fear, believe what they feed you. I won't bother to respond since the little I read of your response has any relevance to my opinion.
But yes, God help us.
So you are the one who is quoting a youtube source who falsified the data in her experiments, is a joke in the medical community, who claims Fauci and Gates are using Americans as guinea pigs in some money making scheme ...
and then you tell me “you don’t take my opinion serious“ that this dumb bitch’s wackjob video has been debunked and to “carry on, live in fear, believe what they feed you”.
I would try to explain the concept of irony as clearly it’s totally lost on you, but I don’t think pictures, crayons and small words are going to help.
Show me the evidence of the money trail you suggested. That was your premise: this is a nefarious money making scheme by two guys who IMO clearly don’t seem to care about money, but by all means - prove your opinion. Did you follow the money? Where did it lead?
Or did you find it was a dead-end nothingburger and you’re too chicken-shit to admit the truth?
I didn't quote anything that I can see. I referenced that video as something to look at.
And no, I have plenty of research, I just choose to ignore you. Your approach is so asinine and I don't feel the need to feed a troll.
Ahhh ... so we are going with the “I know the answer, but I’m not going to tell you and just ignore you” defense.
Cool!
I remember that tactic in 2nd grade when I was caught trying to explain something I had no fucking clue about either.
nope. just don't feel the need to feed the troll blathering on and on. But I am glad you recognize that you had no fucking clue what you were talking about.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
@ medaille said:
One thing I can’t unsee anymore is how people will readily
talk about experts and we should have faith in experts when the conversation
centers around experts they agree with, but as soon as the conversation centers
around the experts they don’t agree with the expert isn’t an expert anymore,
but a shill for someone else, or a quack, or not a real . Just look at your facebook feed right now,
and find all the examples of “experts” claiming things and then the otherside
trivializing their credentials and worthiness to be an expert, but than also
posting some crap article that parrots their opinion, has an “expert” in it
that tells you what to think, but not why they think it. The news article will be 2 pages long and
there will be 98% the authors opinion, supported by about 2-3 partial quotes,
where the expert is mostly just name dropped for the sake of bolstering their
opinion.
There just may be a clue about using facebook feeds as a source for information. Dumped facebook 4 years ago and don't feel any dumber for it. Just the analytics and the opportunities for marketing fringe crap, it has all the appeal of the varied industries building at the state fair. Entertaining but rarely usefull.
not that you need or want any validation from me, but you just went up a few notches in my book.
facebook is for looking at the local sales adds or a new restaurant trying to get free advertising, but as far as a credible forum for idea exchange.. oofdah, suspect at best.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
Jimmy, small correction, weather and climate are two different things, it's hard to learn apples when all you are thinking is oranges. Its like saying gas and diesel are the same, they are used to run cars, two different systems, confusion is costly.
Well, in Jimmy's defense: there are A LOT of CC believers who treat them as though they are the same thing. When various weather events happen, *SOME* of the CC folks will chalk it up to CC. The "experts" in CC science will- sometimes- have to come forward in order to refute those things. So, like I said, it's not a big surprise that some folks get the two confused, since it is CC folks who are conflating them.
And, Jimmy doesn't need any defense because I know that he already knows this.
|
