• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

What will it take to convince you of climate change?

Thanks again, Coors. But, once again, someone is going to trot out the Republican lie, that ALL scientists are taking money to find on the side of climate change, that Hilary Clinton is behind it, that Only God can change the climate,

Don't mistake my sentiment. I'm not a Democrat NOT A Liberal. NOT A Republican. NOT A Conservative.
 
Last edited:
CoorsLight said:
The climate denying propaganda hinges on this false conflation: The scientists are in cahoots with the profiteers like Al Gore. That's the best way to dismiss this huge body of research out of hand.

Sorry, it's just not true. Show me a scientific paper that advocates cap and trade. Show me just one.

Scientists are stuck in the middle, with their research being distorted and cynically used by both sides. This thread is a great example of the harsh reality: most people, even the activists, are not exposed to the raw science. All anyone gets is provocative propaganda, moving them to fight proxy battles for the profiteers on both sides.

When I got started in atmospheric research, I did not believe in global warming. I bought into the natural cycles bullshit 100%. But I was just a chemist, and my expertise at the time had nothing to do with the atmosphere. But eventually I had to read the literature, and I had to face the real science. The question of global warming isn't "if" it's "how much." It's really quite clear if you dissect the science, but it takes time to drag yourself through all the research, and people don't have time for that. But that doesn't seem to prevent them from forming opinions and getting all hot under the collar over it. This is true for people on both sides.
Click to expand...

But Coors didn't you know that earth scientists make 6-7 figures like people in the oil industry?!? Clearly we are all trying to become rich of Improving the world. God forbid that we try to make the world a better place.
 
Pierre I am said:
But Coors didn't you know that earth scientists make 6-7 figures like people in the oil industry?!? Clearly we are all trying to become rich of Improving the world. God forbid that we try to make the world a better place.
Click to expand...

:laughing...that's why I'm not in the field anymore. I've got mouths to feed.
 
MikeL said:
Except that is what he is saying. He is saying that because Solyndra failed, green jobs don't or can't exist.

The Solyndra issue is bigger than one company, it's about several countries all using subsidization to win the green energy technology build out race. Solyndra had warning signs of failure before their big subsidization. China, the US, Germany, and several others are pumping billions into solar, wind, geothermal (sometimes) to win the race.

I'm not sure on your taxation without representation point?
Click to expand...

My point on Solyndra, is that the supposed objectives of the green universe is being sussumed by crony capitalism and stupid subsidies. There are no real jobs because they all depend on subsidies by taxpayers. Doesn't matter whether the jobs are here or in China.:wow

Someone mentioned that the oil companies would still use ethanol even without a mandate. Then why are we subsidizing it????:thumbdown
 
kevin 714 said:
Never mind that the real reason solar has a hard time being competitive is because we have free trade with a country (China) who massively subsidizes the industry and then exports them here. Made with materials sourced from central Africa which is (the extraction process) 100% subsidized by them too


One company failed while we figure out how to address that and that's it? Lol people are so short sighted
Click to expand...

My Solar panels were made in Swiss-land... Control/regulate stuff is Outback...
 
CoorsLight said:
Scientists are stuck in the middle, with their research being distorted and cynically used by both sides. This thread is a great example of the harsh reality: most people, even the activists, are not exposed to the raw science. All anyone gets is provocative propaganda, moving them to fight proxy battles for the profiteers on both sides.
Click to expand...

Rather than focus on the duped masses (I think that's what you're implying), can we turn our attention to how climate science is used, specifically, to further agendas? You see, that would allow the average Joe to decide where to direct their ire.

We have been fucking up the environment for years. As a life-long subscriber to Scientific American (oh how the mighty have fallen!) and National Geographic, I'm steeped in environmental causes and the science that explains it. You know what can be done right now? Curtail neonic pesticides before all the bees that pollinate our food crops are gone. Step away from monoculture and excessive plowing which unleashes (by failing to sequester) massive quantities of CO2. Stop net energy loss ethanol "farming" brought on by wrong-headed pollution studies (and corruption). The list is fucking endless.

Now be honest. How many regulatory captures were enabled by scientists lured out of research to the "applied sciences?" How many studies were cited to push poison, directly or indirectly, into our environment and bodies. I think you know the answer. So rather than paint with a broad dialectic brush, consider that many of us layman live and work with a plethora of Phds whose support of AGW is also wavering.
 
nakedape said:
Rather than focus on the duped masses (I think that's what you're implying), can we turn our attention to how climate science is used, specifically, to further agendas? You see, that would allow the average Joe to decide where to direct their ire.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that what I was saying :confused

nakedape said:
You know what can be done right now? Curtail neonic pesticides before all the bees that pollinate our food crops are gone. Step away from monoculture and excessive plowing which unleashes (by failing to sequester) massive quantities of CO2. Stop net energy loss ethanol "farming" brought on by wrong-headed pollution studies (and corruption). The list is fucking endless.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed.

nakedape said:
Now be honest. How many regulatory captures were enabled by scientists lured out of research to the "applied sciences?" How many studies were cited to push poison, directly or indirectly, into our environment and bodies. I think you know the answer. So rather than paint with a broad dialectic brush, consider that many of us layman live and work with a plethora of Phds whose support of AGW is also wavering.
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer. But I don't really understand the question, either.

flying_hun said:
Kind of like jobs in defense.
Click to expand...

Good point. No-bid defense contracts are the ultimate in corporate welfare.

Solyndra's failure to repay the $500M loan is commonly used as a symbol of failures in the "green" industries at the expense of the taxpayer. I think the F-35 program is a similarly good example of the taxpayer's subsidy of the defense industry. The cost? $1.5 trillion. Yes, 3000 times worse than Solyndra. Where is the outrage?
 
CoorsLight said:
Solyndra's failure to repay the $500M loan is commonly used as a symbol of failures in the "green" industries at the expense of the taxpayer. I think the F-35 program is a similarly good example of the taxpayer's subsidy of the defense industry. The cost? $1.5 trillion. Yes, 3000 times worse than Solyndra. Where is the outrage?
Click to expand...

Bingo!

It's all tribal. This is what my tribe believes, and I need to be a member in good standing in my tribe, therefore this is what I will believe. Objective reality be damned.
 
CoorsLight said:
Good point. No-bid defense contracts are the ultimate in corporate welfare.

Solyndra's failure to repay the $500M loan is commonly used as a symbol of failures in the "green" industries at the expense of the taxpayer. I think the F-35 program is a similarly good example of the taxpayer's subsidy of the defense industry. The cost? $1.5 trillion. Yes, 3000 times worse than Solyndra. Where is the outrage?
Click to expand...

why do you love the terrorists, and hate jesus?
 
corndog67 said:
Thanks again, Coors. But, once again, someone is going to trot out the Republican lie, that ALL scientists are taking money to find on the side of climate change, that Hilary Clinton is behind it, that Only God can change the climate,

Don't mistake my sentiment. I'm not a Democrat NOT A Liberal. NOT A Republican. NOT A Conservative.
Click to expand...


The problem for most climate change legislation, is the monetization of the solution.

Carbon credits are simply a way for the wealthy to skim money and control economic activity.

There are plenty of ways, through legislation, to solve (as best we can) climate change.

First step: Don't vote for anyone over 40.

Second step: Don't vote for anyone who is in the top 10% in terms of wealth.

Third step: Don't vote for anyone with a D or an R after their name.
 
Gabe said:
How about now?
Click to expand...

"This is a consequence of the disproportionally strong warming in the Arctic; it can make weather systems move less and stay longer in a given location - which can significantly enhance the impacts of rainfall extremes, just like we're sadly witnessing in Houston."
However, slow-moving storms over Texas have appeared before. Tropical storms Claudette in 1979 and Allison in 2001 had huge rainfall impacts as they settled in place over the state for long periods. Other scientists think that attributing the slowly meandering nature of this storm to climate change is a step too far.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41082668

Looking at a single event is non conclusive, unfortunately there is not enough data to accurately make a conclusion but evidence will mount over time.

look on the dark side, by the time it becomes apparent it will be too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top