Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue

Yeah, yesterday was pretty darned hot, and today is shaping up to be more of the same. I have to say, I remain amazed at how livable our house is with only the one air conditioner here in the attic. Just a benefit of a house built before AC even existed, when finding ways to naturally abate the heat were vital.

Vital Links: Thanks Ant and Acleacius.
Play: Ragdoll Achievement.
Links: Video Games: An Industry in Flux [INFOGRAPHIC].
Stories: Las Vegas roulette wheel reportedly hits 19 seven straight times.
Media: 8-Bitham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.
The "Pre-Mortem One-Liner" Supercut. NSFW.
Top Gear Record Breaking Stunt.
Follow-up: Professor fired after expressing climate change skepticism.
Where the Hell is Matt? Dancing All Over the World AGAIN!

View
33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

33. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 23, 2012, 16:53 Orogogus
 
As a control issue it still doesn't make sense to invoke global gloom and doom and collaborate with outsiders unnecessarily. A government can just point to Los Angeles or Beijing for justification on why intervention is needed to reign in pollution. The FDA doesn't need to manufacture an artificial drug poisoning epidemic to justify its existence. It can start from reasonable measures and then over-bureaucratize over time.

If there were someone with an actual agenda, it would make more sense to focus on the local effects of pollution and use those to establish regulations. Secondhand smoke as an issue took hold amazingly quickly and with relatively little dissent. Making it a global issue just muddies the waters and brings in even more outsiders to the table.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 23, 2012, 16:07 Matshock
 
Orogogus wrote on Jun 23, 2012, 14:42:
1. Those spending actions are justifications that would be used for raising taxes, as indicated by the word "to".

2. The same checks that keep the government from raising taxes at the federal level apply to climate change regulation as well.

3. You'll note that James Lovelock still believes in manmade global warming.

The base argument is, why would governments need to fund a global warming scare to raise revenue? There are easier, more profitable ways.

I'll answer the question because it is worth while:

Because governments don't care about profit. They care about control.
Controlling CO2 emissions give them complete power over transportation, agriculture, construction- every human activity really.

Turn off your lights then light a candle- you just added more CO2 to the atmosphere than the coal power that went to your light bulb. Take a breath...why are you still breathing at age 80?

Need some examples?

Governments propose to make your health care decisions for you.

Liberals love to remind us that our .gov lied about the reasons we went to war in two countries this last decade and killed 100's of thousands of people. Heck, we elected the anti-war president and an anti-war congress and we're still doing it.

Governments criminalize one form of chemical recreation and legalize another based on nothing more than where the campaign funding is coming from.

Nazis demonizing Jews.

Muslim Theocracies do the same.

MacArthy hunting communists in Hollywood.

Appartied

Slavery

The list goes on damn near forever.

In the end how were any of those profitable? And don't tell me slavery was because when Atlanta was burned to ground that made it pretty much a wash.

Taxation isn't about profit- it's about control. Regulation and criminalization even more so and they're on the docket in CO2 legislation too.

I never denied that man-made global warming was real.

WAKE UP LITTLE DRONES! READ! THINK!

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 23, 2012, 14:42 Orogogus
 
1. Those spending actions are justifications that would be used for raising taxes, as indicated by the word "to".

2. The same checks that keep the government from raising taxes at the federal level apply to climate change regulation as well.

3. You'll note that James Lovelock still believes in manmade global warming.

The base argument is, why would governments need to fund a global warming scare to raise revenue? There are easier, more profitable ways.

This comment was edited on Jun 23, 2012, 14:47.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 23, 2012, 14:09 Matshock
 
Orogogus wrote on Jun 23, 2012, 12:28:
Matshock wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 12:01:
as I alluded to before, greedy & incompetent governments with taxation agendas have an absolute monopoly on the research so that's not surprising.

This just sounds incredibly contrived and tinfoil hat every time you bring it up as an arguing point. Greedy governments don't need to make up stories about climate change to raise taxes. They can raise taxes just because. In countries where they have to care about votes, the demographic swayed by climate change arguments is the same one that would be willing to shift the tax burden from low earners to corporations. It's in these governments' interest to have companies earning more money and then slapping taxes on them to offset the deficit, to pay for universal health care, to safeguard against an increase in Chinese defense spending, to bail out the Detroit auto industry, anything they feel like, none of which requires research, grant money or handing the burden of justification to people and organizations outside their direct control. There are far simpler and more broadly appealing pretexts than a climate change bogeyman, wherein the hypothetical insane government(s) have picked something that goes down as well as a tax to fund abortions.

When people posit the reverse, that giant, polluting corporations have enormous incentive to muddle the climate change argument, it's a much more direct line of argument.

I'll forgo trading insults because it would be too easy.

1. You cited a bunch of spending actions as examples of things .gov does because it can, not tax actions.

2. They haven't raised taxes at a federal level (all the things you cited are federal) because they apparently can't (as of now).

3. James Lovelock, whom I cited maybe even as you were typing doesn't need money from .gov or corporate folks.

Since your argument doesn't even appear valid on it's face I'll just sit here confidently in a philosophical corner with James Lovelock.

I'm done here- don't take to the streets kids or you'll get run over.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 23, 2012, 12:28 Orogogus
 
Matshock wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 12:01:
as I alluded to before, greedy & incompetent governments with taxation agendas have an absolute monopoly on the research so that's not surprising.

This just sounds incredibly contrived and tinfoil hat every time you bring it up as an arguing point. Greedy governments don't need to make up stories about climate change to raise taxes. They can raise taxes just because. In countries where they have to care about votes, the demographic swayed by climate change arguments is the same one that would be willing to shift the tax burden from low earners to corporations. It's in these governments' interest to have companies earning more money and then slapping taxes on them to offset the deficit, to pay for universal health care, to safeguard against an increase in Chinese defense spending, to bail out the Detroit auto industry, anything they feel like, none of which requires research, grant money or handing the burden of justification to people and organizations outside their direct control. There are far simpler and more broadly appealing pretexts than a climate change bogeyman, wherein the hypothetical insane government(s) have picked something that goes down as well as a tax to fund abortions.

When people posit the reverse, that giant, polluting corporations have enormous incentive to muddle the climate change argument, it's a much more direct line of argument.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 23, 2012, 12:22 Matshock
 
...and here's the skinny right from the source, James Lovelock:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

I've got more in common with the originator of the Gaia Theory than the professed believers here and elsewhere.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, heís never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, thatís how science advances.

...and that's the tip of the iceberg- great article.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 22, 2012, 23:52 Matshock
 
Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 22:05:
Should be fine. Since most of the studies go back to several studies with badly formulated data. Yamal for instance, when not cherry picked doesn't reflect the data as was presented. Universities from China, Japan and Canada have tried to recreate the hockey stick and have failed. So have independent scientists. Doesn't help either when the scientists themselves refuse to release the data, or have 'lost' the data, or have deliberately deleted the data, or are stonewalling the data.

No no. That speaks of agenda's and agenda's aren't science. That's orthodoxy, you know. Remember that thing you learned in World History class, about the Catholic Church and Indulgences? Now you remember that thing about Carbon Credits and paying people to make you feel better?

So, lets not forget that they've been saying that the arctic would be free of ice this year, um 20 years ago. Or that there would be no ice on various mountains, or all the glaciers would be gone. Or a variety of other things. Let's not forget that the MET office for example was saying that there would be no more snow in the UK, but they got snow last year. Let's not pretend either that we don't have even a fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of weather in the longterm itself, but we're trying to understand climate.

Science is fine, what most conservatives believe is that indeed there is global warming. What they don't believe is that it's manmade. What they do believe is that it's either natural in some form, or there's a mechanism that's missing. Seeing as how this rock has been much warmer with CO2 levels 40x higher, and life was flourishing. Well until a giant meteor hit.

Warning: slightly drunk post:

I've got a background in business but I use the scientific method in some of my work and I'm familiar with it on a basic level.

I see climate change/GW as kind of scam because the people selling it have one of two stories:

1. You have a disease- it's called CO2 and I have a cure for it. It's in the next room here and if you just give me a large sum of money I'l go get it for you and bring it right out. But I can't show it to you first.

2. If you don't give me a large sum of money a hurricane will kick in your door and kill your family. Or a drought, or an ice age or some such shit.

Two classic BS scams- so as a business person I don't buy it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 22, 2012, 22:05 Mashiki Amiketo
 
jdreyer wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 05:38:

Why do conservatives have such a problem with science? Of 1000s of studies, published 99% support anthropomorphic global warming. 1% don't. You guys really do support the 1%. Please go buy beachfront property in FL and let us know how that works out for you in 30 years.

Put it another way: would you not fire a doctor who tried to fix you using leeches and prayer instead of modern surgical techniques? 99% of published studies show that modern surgical techniques are more effective than leeches and prayer. Are you really going to say you shouldn't fire the doctor for not being a good little AMA douche?

This isn't to single out conservatives exclusively. There are plenty of anti-science libs, like the anti-vaccine kooks.
Should be fine. Since most of the studies go back to several studies with badly formulated data. Yamal for instance, when not cherry picked doesn't reflect the data as was presented. Universities from China, Japan and Canada have tried to recreate the hockey stick and have failed. So have independent scientists. Doesn't help either when the scientists themselves refuse to release the data, or have 'lost' the data, or have deliberately deleted the data, or are stonewalling the data.

No no. That speaks of agenda's and agenda's aren't science. That's orthodoxy, you know. Remember that thing you learned in World History class, about the Catholic Church and Indulgences? Now you remember that thing about Carbon Credits and paying people to make you feel better?

So, lets not forget that they've been saying that the arctic would be free of ice this year, um 20 years ago. Or that there would be no ice on various mountains, or all the glaciers would be gone. Or a variety of other things. Let's not forget that the MET office for example was saying that there would be no more snow in the UK, but they got snow last year. Let's not pretend either that we don't have even a fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of weather in the longterm itself, but we're trying to understand climate.

Science is fine, what most conservatives believe is that indeed there is global warming. What they don't believe is that it's manmade. What they do believe is that it's either natural in some form, or there's a mechanism that's missing. Seeing as how this rock has been much warmer with CO2 levels 40x higher, and life was flourishing. Well until a giant meteor hit.
 
--
"For every human problem,
there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong."
--H.L. Mencken
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 22, 2012, 19:16 jdreyer
 
Matshock wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 12:01:
Medical grade leeches are bred and used to restore circulation in re-attached extremities. Prayer has been proven to increase patient's chances of recovery and speed recovery. One doesn't have to be a kook to ignorantly dismiss that which they don't understand.

As for 99% of studies favoring industrialization as the cause of GW- as I alluded to before, greedy & incompetent governments with taxation agendas have an absolute monopoly on the research so that's not surprising.


What you say is true, but leeches and prayer supplement modern surgery, they don't replace it, which was my point. And the use of sterilized maggots on necrotic tissue is a pretty cool use of the little guys.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 22, 2012, 12:01 Matshock
 
jdreyer wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 05:38:
Why do conservatives have such a problem with science? Of 1000s of studies, published 99% support anthropomorphic global warming. 1% don't. You guys really do support the 1%. Please go buy beachfront property in FL and let us know how that works out for you in 30 years.

Put it another way: would you not fire a doctor who tried to fix you using leeches and prayer instead of modern surgical techniques? 99% of published studies show that modern surgical techniques are more effective than leeches and prayer. Are you really going to say you shouldn't fire the doctor for not being a good little AMA douche?

This isn't to single out conservatives exclusively. There are plenty of anti-science libs, like the anti-vaccine kooks.

Medical grade leeches are bred and used to restore circulation in re-attached extremities. Prayer has been proven to increase patient's chances of recovery and speed recovery. One doesn't have to be a kook to ignorantly dismiss that which they don't understand.

As for 99% of studies favoring industrialization as the cause of GW- as I alluded to before, greedy & incompetent governments with taxation agendas have an absolute monopoly on the research so that's not surprising.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 22, 2012, 10:01 kanniballl
 
Zadig wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 17:43:
It's strange that the "Northeast" is about 10 degrees hotter than the Carolinas. First a snowless winter, then a 'mild' summer? Lucky me.

Yeh, we've had fairly mild weather lately. Summer in the 80s, not that much snow in the Winter (just the freak storm in October).

So this mini heat wave kind of came out of nowhere. I believe Thursday broke 100...

which might sound wimpy to some of you but tack on humidity and factor in the fact it just hit us like a wall of heat (after weeks of 80s) and it's considerable.


-
 
"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurama
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 22, 2012, 09:36 PHJF
 

It's strange that the "Northeast" is about 10 degrees hotter than the Carolinas. First a snowless winter, then a 'mild' summer? Lucky me.

No kidding, I was just up in Ohio for a week and it hit 94 and now back on the coast I'm looking at low eighties all weekend (plus chance of rain, fucking shit).
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 22, 2012, 09:33 kanniballl
 
I think it stinks if the professor was fired for being skeptical. I believe in man-made or at least man-influenced global warming, but even still...

It's a theory... it's pretty much a scientist's job to challenge a theory until it can be sufficiently proven or disproven. To simply accept the status-quo "just because" is quite hurtful to our knowledge of the universe.

I'm not saying a scientist should then support or teach creationism as a science which (as much as fundies deny) is not grounded in ANY science.

But to challenge or be skeptical of a theory that, let's face it, is going to be *really* hard to 100% prove one way or the other... I don't see that as terrible.

And certainly not a fireable offense.

In science, it's technically just as exciting to disprove something as it is to prove something... because either way we've LEARNED something about the universe.


-
 
"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurama
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 22, 2012, 09:10 nin
 
Among reasonable people the question isn't if global warming is happening. The question is how much are humans contributing to it?

Exactly, thank you.

 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 22, 2012, 08:25 Mr. Tact
 
Among reasonable people the question isn't if global warming is happening. The question is how much are humans contributing to it? While I haven't researched it extensively, what I have read has left me unconvinced either way. We have problems predicting local rainfall, deciphering global weather is a few orders of magnitude above that.  
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 22, 2012, 05:38 jdreyer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 17:17:
I keep forgetting you libs like to silence anyone who doesn't share your views. Who knows if climate change is legit or not, but firing an awarded Professor simply based on that he doesn't buy into it lock stock and barrel like a good little EPA douche is extreme doncha think?

Why do conservatives have such a problem with science? Of 1000s of studies, published 99% support anthropomorphic global warming. 1% don't. You guys really do support the 1%. Please go buy beachfront property in FL and let us know how that works out for you in 30 years.

Put it another way: would you not fire a doctor who tried to fix you using leeches and prayer instead of modern surgical techniques? 99% of published studies show that modern surgical techniques are more effective than leeches and prayer. Are you really going to say you shouldn't fire the doctor for not being a good little AMA douche?

This isn't to single out conservatives exclusively. There are plenty of anti-science libs, like the anti-vaccine kooks.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 21, 2012, 20:28 TheLeech
 
Bats, did it make you a little sick to have to refute a Fox News article? The other guy clearly didn't read the article, or if he did, he wasn't able to read around the propaganda.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 21, 2012, 18:52 Rigs
 
Yes! YES! BAKE UNDER THE OPPRESSIVE HEAT!

Find that after a few hours of playing Diablo3, you're sitting in a puddle....OF SWEAT!

Now you all know what I have endured all of these long years! Every single year, (now 15 years going on a hundred) from April until November! Dew points and temperatures doing a dance, daring one to get as close as it can to the other. Meanwhile, the lawn needs to be mowed twice a week! That machete over there in the corner? I cut the air with it! Yes, indeed, sometimes so thick you think if it was colored you might actually find out what it's like to live in JELLO!

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN...of SWEAT!


=-Rigs-=
 
Avatar 14292
 
'I know what you think you are, what you want us to believe! But I don't buy it! For three years now you've been pulling everyone's strings, getting us to do all the work, and you haven't done a damn thing except stand there and look cryptic.'
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 21, 2012, 17:50 Matshock
 
xXBatmanXx wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 17:10:
Cutter wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 15:21:
TheLeech wrote on Jun 21, 2012, 15:13:
That professor will be fine. The wingnut welfare state takes care of its martyrs.


Heaven knows the borrow/steal & spend right-wing kooks certainly are unable to.

As opposed to the left that....lets see....oh yea! Borrow/steal & spend. Got it.

Na, na you got it wrong man, when they do it it's job creation. Racist

Seriously though, yeah the industrial-military folks raided the treasury a bit during Bush W's terms and are still trying to do so.

But a volunteer military can only do so much- the hundred+ million conscripts of the long-term unemployed have spent as much in three years as the I-M folks did in eight. They take two swings at the treasury for every one that the I-M folks did (they take out and then pay no taxes back in). It's call Cloward-Piven, look it up. The tragedy is that when the conscript army wins they get liquidated right thereafter.

I'll throw my lot in with the 1% thanks. There's just the teeniest, tiniest chance we can still turn this thing around.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Out of the Blue Jun 21, 2012, 17:43 Zadig
 
It's strange that the "Northeast" is about 10 degrees hotter than the Carolinas. First a snowless winter, then a 'mild' summer? Lucky me.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo