By:
Advanced search…

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Worst Anti-Science BS of 2017

4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg
 
Spartanmack said:
well, if making unsubstantiated claims that aren't true isn't lying because they can be neither proved or disproved then I guess Al Gore deserves his millions and his nobel prize. I stand corrected (#sarcasm).
Click to expand...

"can be neither proved or disproved" there's that crutch deniers love to lean on again. Math deals in proofs. Science deals in evidence. Usually comes up in talks of theism and atheism, but it applies here too.
 
well, what if it's all a big hoax and we spend all that money (estimates are around $4T) and we don't create a better world?
 
Spartanmack said:
well, what if it's all a big hoax and we spend all that money (estimates are around $4T) and we don't create a better world?
Click to expand...

False choice. Don't spend $4T. Just stop rolling back environmental regulations, subsidizing fossil fuel industries, and invest in green tech research (where the return of investment is positive.)
 
"Big hoax"

The moon landing hoax would be small potatoes compared to this one in terms of the number of people involved.
 
Gulo Blue said:
"can be neither proved or disproved" there's that crutch deniers love to lean on again. Math deals in proofs. Science deals in evidence. Usually comes up in talks of theism and atheism, but it applies here too.
Click to expand...

you're the one who is saying Al Gore hasn't been proved wrong - it's perfectly reasonable to make the point that he hasn't been proved right, especially considering the lack of evidence in his favor.

Also, you've ignored the Kilimanjaro, Lake Chad, dead polar bears claims. He also said the coral reef bleaching was due to global warming - that's not what scientists say either. He made claims that global warming would shut down the "Ocean Conveyor" - also not backed up by the scientific community. He thinks low lying Pacific Atolls were being inundated because of AGW. And didn't he say sea levels would rise 20 meters "in the near future" due to the melting of Greenland ice? Well, if he meant over millennia (plural) when he said "in the near future" then I guess that can't be considered a lie either.

Maybe he used very clever wording for all these issues he points out so we can't technically say he lied. But if he's not sighting all these instances as evidence of his claim of AGW, then what is he saying about them and what's the point of the movie?
 
Last edited:
Gulo Blue said:
False choice. Don't spend $4T. Just stop rolling back environmental regulations, subsidizing fossil fuel industries, and invest in green tech research (where the return of investment is positive.)
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that's not what the cartoonist meant when he/she said "create a better world." These big climate summits that result in things like the Paris Accord tend to result in commitments that go a little farther than that, at least for the U.S.
 
Spartanmack said:
you're the one who is saying Al Gore hasn't been proved wrong - it's perfectly reasonable to make the point that he hasn't been proved right, especially considering the lack of evidence in his favor.

Also, you've ignored the Kilimanjaro, Lake Chad, dead polar bears claims. He also said the coral reef bleaching was due to global warming - that's not what scientists say either. He made claims that global warming would shut down the "Ocean Conveyor" - also not backed up by the scientific community. He thinks low lying Pacific Atolls were being inundated because of AGW. And didn't he say sea levels would rise 20 meters "in the near future" due to the melting of Greenland ice? Well, if he meant over millennia (plural) when he said "in the near future" then I guess that can't be considered a lie either.

Maybe he used very clever wording for all these issues he points out so we can't technically say he lied. But if he's not sighting all these instances as evidence of his claim of AGW, then what is he saying about them and what's the point of the movie?
Click to expand...

I've dug up a couple quotes, but if you don't know what he said and I don't know what he said, and when I find a quote you brush it off with a rewording of the "it's what he implies" argument, then what's the point?

There are a ton of reasons to consider the environment in our planning. Tons of reasons to advance technology and move away from old one. Some of those reasons are threats and those threats are understood to different degrees with different amounts of certainty. But when calculating risk, you have to consider both the probability of a thing and the consequences of a thing. Very certain, but smaller impacts deserve attention and so do small probability, but dire consequences. We're faced with both. If you discuss both, what you say and how you say it matters. Has Gore walked that line properly or not, I don't know. Either way, I think the politicization of the subject has poisoned the minds of tons of people in this country. The military and private industry take it seriously while the suckers chant "Drill Baby Drill".
 
Spartanmack said:
well, what if it's all a big hoax and we spend all that money (estimates are around $4T)
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that making the planet healthier and more livable is priceless as we only get one. But let's just assume your sources estimates of $4T are accurate. Global GDP is around $75T. The United States alone spends about 12% ($500B+) of that annually on swinging our military's dick around. It would take some re prioritizing and a long look in the mirror but it's not as impossible as you'd make it seem.

Spartanmack said:
and we don't create a better world?
Click to expand...

Are you of the opinion that reducing pollution, reducing waste, and creating cleaner air/water wouldn't create a better world? Hot take.
 
sggatecl said:
I'm of the opinion that making the planet healthier and more livable is priceless as we only get one. But let's just assume your sources estimates of $4T are accurate. Global GDP is around $75T. The United States alone spends about 12% ($500B+) of that annually on swinging our military's dick around. It would take some re prioritizing and a long look in the mirror but it's not as impossible as you'd make it seem.
Click to expand...

The $4T estimate is for the US alone. That's almost 1/3 of our GDP. Big number. If we spend $4t transforming our economy while the rest of the world doesn't, we'll be put at a significant competitive disadvantage we won't recover from for generations, even if it works and particularly if it turns out we didn't need to be so extreme.

sggatecl said:
Are you of the opinion that reducing pollution, reducing waste, and creating cleaner air/water wouldn't create a better world? Hot take.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not of that opinion. I'm aware of the fact green energy isn't as green as people think. Making batteries is nasty business that generates some really undesirable waste - same is true with solar. Electricity to charge batteries currently requires fossil fuels. Net carbon emission and material waste reductions aren't as big as people are led to believe. Wind and solar farms kill a lot of animals. The list goes on. I'm all for reducing pollution and think we should be investing in new nuclear as well as upgrading the current fleet. But people who overpay for a Prius huffing their own farts thinking they're saving the planet don't get any credit in my book.
 
Last edited:
Gulo Blue said:
I've dug up a couple quotes, but if you don't know what he said and I don't know what he said, and when I find a quote you brush it off with a rewording of the "it's what he implies" argument, then what's the point?

There are a ton of reasons to consider the environment in our planning. Tons of reasons to advance technology and move away from old one. Some of those reasons are threats and those threats are understood to different degrees with different amounts of certainty. But when calculating risk, you have to consider both the probability of a thing and the consequences of a thing. Very certain, but smaller impacts deserve attention and so do small probability, but dire consequences. We're faced with both. If you discuss both, what you say and how you say it matters. Has Gore walked that line properly or not, I don't know. Either way, I think the politicization of the subject has poisoned the minds of tons of people in this country. The military and private industry take it seriously while the suckers chant "Drill Baby Drill".
Click to expand...

So he's NOT implying that? It's just the opening shot in the movie for no reason?

I agree there are a lot of reasons to consider the environment. You're arguing against a point I'm not making. I understand risk and calculating expected values but it's clear if you watch Al's movie, these aren't small probability risks - they're near certainties in his mind. If you don't think he's lying and he's just wrong, fine. I disagree and we can leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
Spartanmack said:
The $4T estimate is for the US alone. That's almost 1/3 of our GDP. Big number.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, that's not even 1/4 of our GDP, let alone almost 1/3. Is that an annual $4T? Spread out over time? Genuinely curious.



Spartanmack said:
No, I'm not of that opinion. I'm aware of the fact green energy isn't as green as people think. Making batteries is nasty business that generates some really undesirable waste - same is true with solar. Electricity to charge batteries currently requires fossil fuels. Wind and solar farms kill a lot of animals. I'm all for reducing pollution and think we should be investing in new nuclear as well as upgrading the current fleet. But people who overpay for a Prius huffing their own farts thinking they're saving the planet don't get any credit in my book.
Click to expand...

I've seen studies that have shown wind and solar farms are a detriment to some wildlife, usually of the avian variety. I'd be curious to see how that would stack up to the wildlife affected by oil spills and/or air pollution from coal power plants.

I'm 100% with you on nuclear. It seems to be the most feasible middle ground while solar (and less likely air) continues to get cheaper and more efficient.

We have an electric car for work, but the batteries in our garage are run by our solar batteries. I see this being a more common thing so long as the lobbyists don't kill personal solar like they've tried to in Florida and other states.
 
sggatecl said:
Last I checked, that's not even 1/4 of our GDP, let alone almost 1/3. Is that an annual $4T? Spread out over time? Genuinely curious.





I've seen studies that have shown wind and solar farms are a detriment to some wildlife, usually of the avian variety. I'd be curious to see how that would stack up to the wildlife affected by oil spills and/or air pollution from coal power plants.

I'm 100% with you on nuclear. It seems to be the most feasible middle ground while solar (and less likely air) continues to get cheaper and more efficient.

We have an electric car for work, but the batteries in our garage are run by our solar batteries. I see this being a more common thing so long as the lobbyists don't kill personal solar like they've tried to in Florida and other states.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that estimate is old, I've been quoting it for a few years now. at today's production levels, keeping the estimate flat it's more than a fifth of GDP - still a very big number. It's a total and I'm sure it's more than a year but don't know how long - prob more than 10 but less than 20 - just a guess. It's only an estimate and I'd bet the cost will be much higher but at $4t it's still a massive number. You want to be pretty confident in the outcome when you're committing that much money and you can't be the only country doing it.

As for the animals being killed, it's a tough comparison - you'd have to adjust for the units of energy produced, right? Not to mention, it's probably hard to measure how many birds are killed by coal emissions.
 
Last edited:
I did a quick google search (so it must be true)

Wind turbines are estimated to kill between 150K-350K birds a year. Let's say that's a low estimate and it is actually 1M

340M birds are killed by cars and trucks on US roads every year
19M ducks and geese are killed by hunters every year
cats kill up to 3.7 Billion birds a year

I think there are enough birds....we don't have to worry about wind turbines killing them.

To me, it seems like we have plenty of birds
 
tomdalton22 said:
I did a quick google search (so it must be true)

Wind turbines are estimated to kill between 150K-350K birds a year. Let's say that's a low estimate and it is actually 1M

340M birds are killed by cars and trucks on US roads every year
19M ducks and geese are killed by hunters every year
cats kill up to 3.7 Billion birds a year

I think there are enough birds....we don't have to worry about wind turbines killing them.

To me, it seems like we have plenty of birds
Click to expand...

Maybe, but they'll tell you which types of birds matters. Cats aren't killing hawks and eagles. Plus solar farms are incinerating birds mid flight. And if we want to take wind and solar from 5% of our generation to half, then you can multiply the number of dead birds, whatever it is, by 10. It'll be birdageddon.
 
tomdalton22 said:
I did a quick google search (so it must be true)

Wind turbines are estimated to kill between 150K-350K birds a year. Let's say that's a low estimate and it is actually 1M

340M birds are killed by cars and trucks on US roads every year
19M ducks and geese are killed by hunters every year
cats kill up to 3.7 Billion birds a year

I think there are enough birds....we don't have to worry about wind turbines killing them.

To me, it seems like we have plenty of birds
Click to expand...

nice work, Tom!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Threads
32,882
Messages
1,108,923
Members
942
Latest member
Proud Pheasant

Affiliates

    Discussion Hub
Back
Top