Rick Perry selected for Energy Secretary

[Spartanmack]

Trump's picks on climate are laughable!!!!

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58507c5ae4b0ee009eb44512

you're chicken little nonsense is what I find laughable.

 

[sggatecl]

I'm all for pollution control, protecting water and air but I'm not ready to commit trillions of dollars to transform our economy, social structures and way of life...

So you're all for protecting the Earth but only if it doesn't inconvenience your 1st world lifestyle?

Even if you think climate change caused by humans is all a big hoax or misnomer, the vast majority of the things that people want to do to prevent it are positive things for the environment regardless of your stance on climate change.

The Earth is dying and we're the primary cause. We've got people on the cutting edge of technology making renewables more and more affordable and attainable each year but people like you are like "nah, keep those coal mines and oil drills going. Gotta keep Murica's economy strong."

 

[sggatecl]

show me where I said the rest are - I referred to a cabal of scientists. If you're referring to the 97% as all the rest, that figure has been debunked. Again, consensus is not part of the scientific method but since so many people here seem to think it is or is all that matters, the actual "consensus" isn't anywhere near 97%. And it's not just a bunch of fringe wackos that don't agree. But you'll never hear about it because it doesn't fit the narrative the popular press has chosen to push.

Fair enough, I wasn't as familiar with the term 'cabal' as I thought I was. You didn't say the rest are, my bad.

After some Googling on the term, I think a show about a 'cabal' of climate change scientists would be amazing network TV. Illuminati could make an appearance and everything.

 

[biggunsbob]

because science doesn't depend on a majority. I'm all for pollution control, protecting water and air but I'm not ready to commit trillions of dollars to transform our economy, social structures and way of life because of global warming alarmists and morons that think consensus is part of the scientific method (I'm talking about you here - you're one of the morons).

When did I ever say trillions of dollars should be spent right now? There you go lying again to fit your post. It can be done gradually if we just gave a shit and did it instead of bowing down to the oil, gas and cattle industry, and others so they can keep thier billions of dollars or profits.Have fun with Trump and has outdated people living in the past. You deniers are the true Moron's so go take a hike, and swim and bath in oil, coal, and animal shit because those regulation are a coming off under Trump...

 

[biggunsbob]

you're chicken little nonsense is what I find laughable.

Your the true idiot denier.

 

[Spartanmack]

So you're all for protecting the Earth but only if it doesn't inconvenience your 1st world lifestyle?

Even if you think climate change caused by humans is all a big hoax or misnomer, the vast majority of the things that people want to do to prevent it are positive things for the environment regardless of your stance on climate change.

The Earth is dying and we're the primary cause. We've got people on the cutting edge of technology making renewables more and more affordable and attainable each year but people like you are like "nah, keep those coal mines and oil drills going. Gotta keep Murica's economy strong."

no, I'm saying I'm not willing to fundamentally transform our economy, social structures and lifestyle because of unproven theories about anthropomorphic climate change. There is plenty we can do to reduce pollution and protect the water we drink and air we breathe without fundamentally changing everything we do at great cost to us and the rest of the world.

The earth is not dying and we're not the primary cause killing it. And I'm not saying anything like what you're saying I'm saying.

 

[Spartanmack]

Your the true idiot denier.

nobody who posts here is remotely as dumb as you. You're an embarrassment to the human race - I just hope your posts aren't what survives after the human race goes extinct. I'd hate to think who or whatever discovers our former existence thinks all humans were as dumb as you.

 

[Thumb]

nobody who posts here is remotely as dumb as you. You're an embarrassment to the human race - I just hope your posts aren't what survives after the human race goes extinct. I'd hate to think who or whatever discovers our former existence thinks all humans were as dumb as you.

When you take things to this level, you become the real joke here. And you probably don't even realize it.

 

[sggatecl]

no, I'm saying I'm not willing to fundamentally transform our economy, social structures and lifestyle because of unproven theories about anthropomorphic climate change. There is plenty we can do to reduce pollution and protect the water we drink and air we breathe without fundamentally changing everything we do at great cost to us and the rest of the world.

So what specific things are you against? Maybe you've stated it before but I don't frequent the politics section as much as others.

The earth is not dying and we're not the primary cause killing it. And I'm not saying anything like what you're saying I'm saying.

I don't know if you're familiar with it but the Living Planet Index is an annual (maybe bi-annual?) report that measures the health of over 3,000 species on Earth. Since 1970, animal populations have declined to over half of what they were. There are many other examples (Reef bleaching, 10% of the Earth's wilderness erased in 25 years, etc) but I feel the reduction in biodiversity is the smoking gun of how irresponsible humans have been in their neglect of the planet.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not rejecting the whole thing - I'm saying it's unsettled. There's a big difference. And it's not tin foil hat stuff, saying it is is what's intellectually dishonest. there were hacked emails that revealed that "scientists" were manipulating data and conspiring to silence the opposition. Those are facts.

You might call it a stretch to use the phrase "tin foil hat" when what I should say is conspiracy theory, but you are literally proposing a conspiracy. The hacked email thing is a tiny drop in the bucket. If everything hinged on that work, you'd have a point, but it doesn't.

 

[Gulo Blue]

the process itself is largely misunderstood. Isn't it the case that peer review isn't a validation of results or conclusions and rather a review of the process and controls? Also, didn't the 97% study determine who was a climate expert based on the number of peer reviewed papers published on climate? That's seems a bit sketchy - write a paper or papers, get people who agree with you to affirm them and be labeled an "expert."

Peer review doesn't involve repeating the experiment. It's only a set of unrelated (and often competing) experts in the field weighing in on the draft paper and saying whether it should be published, could be published with specified changes, or should not be published.

I haven't looked at the 97% paper for years, but if memory serves, they used a few key words in a standard journal search system and read every result. They grouped everything into categories, where it either didn't weigh in on the topic, supported it, or refuted it. It's not the same as conducting research, but I think it qualifies as a simple form of meta-analysis. Meta-analysis isn't fishy; sometimes it's pretty important. But most meta-analysis is significantly more complicated than this.

To my knowledge, it hasn't been debunked so much as people misinterpret what the paper says in the first place. If it was debunked there would be a retraction.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not rejecting the whole thing - I'm saying it's unsettled. There's a big difference. And it's not tin foil hat stuff, saying it is is what's intellectually dishonest. there were hacked emails that revealed that "scientists" were manipulating data and conspiring to silence the opposition. Those are facts.

What part do you think is unsettled? 1) The part about people changing the make up of the atmosphere? Or 2) the part about the earth warming? Or 3) the part about changing the make up of the atmosphere impacting temperature?

Nevermind. I don't think I should get into this with you. If you want to argue that those hacked emails somehow means everyone else is wrong, you'll say anything. I generally think it's not good for people to segregate along ideological lines, but this is just a waste of time. Especially after I told you however many times my thoughts on race, bias, and poverty...plain as could be, and you kept firing it back at me incorrectly. It's not a discussion when you do that. It's just a waste of time.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So what specific things are you against? Maybe you've stated it before but I don't frequent the politics section as much as others.



I don't know if you're familiar with it but the Living Planet Index is an annual (maybe bi-annual?) report that measures the health of over 3,000 species on Earth. Since 1970, animal populations have declined to over half of what they were. There are many other examples (Reef bleaching, 10% of the Earth's wilderness erased in 25 years, etc) but I feel the reduction in biodiversity is the smoking gun of how irresponsible humans have been in their neglect of the planet.

It's the Holocene extinction. Very sad.

 

[Spartanmack]

When you take things to this level, you become the real joke here. And you probably don't even realize it.

I don't feel the need to explain myself to you or anyone else. The guy is a moron and on top of that, completely disrespectful. I've had enough of his stupidity, unhinged rants and vitriol. If you don't like the way I choose to respond to it, that's too bad for you - I simply don't care.

 

[Spartanmack]

Peer review doesn't involve repeating the experiment. It's only a set of unrelated (and often competing) experts in the field weighing in on the draft paper and saying whether it should be published, could be published with specified changes, or should not be published.

I haven't looked at the 97% paper for years, but if memory serves, they used a few key words in a standard journal search system and read every result. They grouped everything into categories, where it either didn't weigh in on the topic, supported it, or refuted it. It's not the same as conducting research, but I think it qualifies as a simple form of meta-analysis. Meta-analysis isn't fishy; sometimes it's pretty important. But most meta-analysis is significantly more complicated than this.

To my knowledge, it hasn't been debunked so much as people misinterpret what the paper says in the first place. If it was debunked there would be a retraction.

The methodology was overly vague which allowed them a great deal of leeway to subjectively put papers into the buckets. There were many authors of papers who said theirs were improperly classified as concluding that man was responsible for climate change or that it was happening.

But again, consensus isn't part of the scientific method so how about people stop taking a false statistic and misrepresenting it as science.

 

[Spartanmack]

What part do you think is unsettled? 1) The part about people changing the make up of the atmosphere? Or 2) the part about the earth warming? Or 3) the part about changing the make up of the atmosphere impacting temperature?

Nevermind. I don't think I should get into this with you. If you want to argue that those hacked emails somehow means everyone else is wrong, you'll say anything. I generally think it's not good for people to segregate along ideological lines, but this is just a waste of time. Especially after I told you however many times my thoughts on race, bias, and poverty...plain as could be, and you kept firing it back at me incorrectly. It's not a discussion when you do that. It's just a waste of time.

2 and 3. I'm not denying them outright, I'm saying they're not settled - although I'm highly skeptical of #2.

and I didn't fire back at you incorrectly. I could say the exact same thing to you. I made my position clear on race, bias and poverty and supported it with facts, yet you kept firing back at me incorrectly. If you recall, I was the one who tried to end it because you kept saying the same thing over and over again as if I didn't understand it rather than simply disagree with it. And here you are now, bringing it up again as part of a completely unrelated discussion while accusing me of being the one who kept coming back - truly unbelievable. Like i said, I could say the exact same thing to you - but I would be right.

 

[Gulo Blue]

2 and 3. I'm not denying them outright, I'm saying they're not settled - although I'm highly skeptical of #2.

and I didn't fire back at you incorrectly. I could say the exact same thing to you. I made my position clear on race, bias and poverty and supported it with facts, yet you kept firing back at me incorrectly. If you recall, I was the one who tried to end it because you kept saying the same thing over and over again and here you are now, bringing it up again as part of a completely unrelated discussion. Like i said, I could say the exact same thing to you - but I would be right.

I say "intellectually dishonest" and you fire back "no, you are". I say you fire things back incorrectly and you say "no, you are".

But you follow it up with the claim that you're actually correct when you say it. Guess you got me there.

 

[Spartanmack]

So what specific things are you against? Maybe you've stated it before but I don't frequent the politics section as much as others.



I don't know if you're familiar with it but the Living Planet Index is an annual (maybe bi-annual?) report that measures the health of over 3,000 species on Earth. Since 1970, animal populations have declined to over half of what they were. There are many other examples (Reef bleaching, 10% of the Earth's wilderness erased in 25 years, etc) but I feel the reduction in biodiversity is the smoking gun of how irresponsible humans have been in their neglect of the planet.

I'm not defending deforestation, wanton pollution of our lands, oceans and waterways, over fishing, poaching, etc. Those are the things we should be focused on. I agree with you that this is the smoking gun but I don't think man made climate changes is the bullet or even the powder - man likely is the primary cause for much of it, but not through warming the planet. So if I think the cause is different, is it not reasonable that solutions are probably also different than what's being pushed by the climate change alarmists.

 

[Spartanmack]

I say "intellectually dishonest" and you fire back "no, you are". I say you fire things back incorrectly and you say "no, you are".

But you follow it up with the claim that you're actually correct when you say it. Guess you got me there.

what am I supposed to say? "You're right Gulo, my bad. You've really convinced me that racism causes poverty because it exists or is it climate change or both?" Gimme a break.

And by the way - I ended the bias/poverty argument when you implied I was racist for disagreeing with your argument. You're "no, you are" bull shit is just as weak, incorrect and insulting so yeah, we should probably end it here. Have fun.