Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2013, 08:05 PM  
AustinChief AustinChief is online now
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12249
Oh no Henny Penny! Here is a REASONABLE report concerning climate change!

Article about the report...
http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...al-warming.htm

Quote:
they believe, "A potential global warming issue has been identified that should be treated as a potential problem for which root cause is not definitely known."
For this reason, they argue, the U.S. government is "over-reacting" to the concerns of the media, scientists and activists and that a more "rational process for allocation of research funds without the constant media hype of an AGW crisis is needed."
The actual report...
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/...ss%20Rpt-1.pdf

And here is another article showing how little we know and how it's BAD SCIENCE to keep claiming with certainty that our models are correct when they continue to be proven wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93F0AJ20130416

Quote:
"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.
Suck it you smug assholes who crow as if you know with certainty how the global climate functions. The models are horrendously flawed and always have been, a ton more research is needed before we even approach a clue.
Posts: 15,274
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 12:09 AM   #31
Shaid Shaid is offline
Veteran
 
Shaid's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Casino cash: $8718
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
OH ****ING NO!!!!!!!!! Let's do drastic things based on stuff we have only marginal understanding of! That's always a prudent course of action!

What if the only thing staving off a massive catastrophic ice age is man made global climate "change." Nice job stopping pollution ****tard... you just left your great-grandkids an icicle for a planet! Sounds ridiculous right? It is... but it's based on about the same level of solid science that the current Henny Penny's are using to try to influence policy change.
It's called planning for the future and if we can look at better energy technology that doesn't polute the planet it's a smart course of action. Oil isn't lasting forever.

If your ridiculous scenario would take effect then the solution is simple, release more greenhouse gas. It's a lot easier to put more in than to take it out. Your point is we don't understand it well enough so lets just close our eyes and hope for the best. I'd equate that to driving at night without the lights. Normally it'd be a good idea to slow down. You are saying just keep going because we can't know for sure what's in front of us.

There are reasonable steps we can take to limit the risk without totally slamming on the brakes. For example, I'm not riding a bicycle to work but I sure wouldn't mind a more energy efficient vehicle.
__________________
Posts: 1,777
Shaid is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Shaid is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Shaid is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Shaid is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Shaid is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Shaid is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Shaid is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Shaid is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Shaid is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Shaid is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Shaid is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 12:20 AM   #32
cdcox cdcox is offline
www.nfl-forecast.com
 
cdcox's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2000
Casino cash: $19564
As far as action goes, the availability and cost of natural gas has bought us some time. I advocate:

1) development of natural gas resources in an environmentally sensible way. The key points are a) inspection and rigorous enforcement of good well head installation and maintenance practices, b) monitoring of shallow groundwater before and during gas development, c) effective management of water resources associated with fracking and proper treatment and disposal of backflow and produced water, and d) minimizing release of natural gas during well operations and pipeline transport.

2) aggressive conversion of coal fired plants to natural gas. Make coal plants have the same greenhouse emissions as gas-fired plants. Gas will come out much more economical under this circumstance.

3) aggressive continued investment in development of economical renewable energy

4) conservation and efficiency

5) international cooperation -- basically getting the rest of the world on board with 1-4.
Posts: 32,725
cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 12:33 AM   #33
AustinChief AustinChief is online now
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12249
re-Commentary in green.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
Oh and I'll take this opportunity to boil the argument down a bit to make it more readable.

Believer: Look Hansen's predictions were correct!!!
Skeptic: Huh? No, none of his scenarios' predictions match measured data
B: Well that's because Hansen used 4.2c for doubling and it should be 3C!
Yes you are correct here. The climate sensitivity appears to be closer to 3C than 4.2C. But even with Hansen's too sensitive model, he was only 0.25 C off on predictions of 2010 temperatures.
No, it was higher it was .25C at 3C not 4.2C but let's pretend it's .25c ... that sounds small to people who don't understand the data... why don't you explain how MASSIVE that is in terms of how far off he was? That is what a 30% deviation? I'd have to go back and look but it's pretty damn big. And here we have proof that it was wrong. Period. But I'll continue reading to play along.
S: Ok, then he was wrong, but let's move on and pretend he had that bit of info... his model still fails because it is still closer to scenario A which was way off
B: NO you failed to also adjust the efficacies of the other greenhouse gasses. NOW you see that the total forcing is closer to scenario B
If you put everything on a forcing basis, it accounts the effects of emissions and efficacy. If you compare Hansen's emissions and Hansen's efficacies in scenario B they represent roughly the same forcing as occured with the actual emissions and actual efficacies. Comparing forcings is an apples to apples comparison. After adjusting the efficacies of all the green house gasses if you look at overall forcing you are right and a good point. It then becomes apples to apples. So we'll ignore that he was wrong on how to get there and causality and just look at the overall forcing? Seems like a pretty useless model at that point(obviously) but I'll play! Wee!
S: Um, you left off volcanic activity...
B: well he couldn't predict that so we'll just ignore it
Wrong. Hansen did include an El Chichon sized eruption in 1995 in his simulations. Instead we got Mt. Pinitubo in 1991. Pinitubo was larger than El Chichon. Volcanic activity has a general cooling trend (less forcing). So if you add volcanic activity it will push forcing lower, further away from scenario A. I'm not saying Hansen was wrong (even though he was here as well, but that has nothing to do with my point) I am saying that the paper you cited (like many others) is wrong because they leave off volcanic activity when determining their "adjusted" total forcing model that they try to match to one of Hanse's scenarios. It is NOT settled that volcanic eruptions have a significant net cooling effect (but I could buy a small one). You can't just ASSUME that the sulfur dioxide and solar energy reduction will OFFSET the greenhouse gasses and throw the data out. What kind of a half assed model are you promoting???

S: but that significantly changes the total forcing
B: I SAID WE'LL IGNORE IT!
S: ok, moving on...
B: NOW see he was right... temps match up right here in 2003!
S: no even with all your fudging he is still off but somewhat close... TEN years ago.. his model today would be WAY off
No. For 2010, using a climate sensitivity of 4.2, Hansen was 0.25C high. If you adjust the sensitivity to 3.0C per doubling, its on the money. No not even close at 4.2C he is WAY THE **** off and at 3C he is still off by a very large margin. Where are you getting your temp readings??? OH WAIT! That tricky underwater ocean heat bubble! Seriously though, you are either lying knowingly or ignorantly about the temp reading. They aren't even remotely close. And btw, it's 2013 we can use 2012 data, going back 2 extra years to 2010 you'll still be wrong but let's show how excruciatingly wrong by using CURRENT data. It's PATENTLY dishonest btw to pick 2010 as an arbitrary point when we both know it was significantly higher then the two years before or the two years after. FOR SHAME YOU SNEAKY SNAKE!!! REJECTED! NOT IN MY HOUSE! I'll catch data manipulation like that every time... well I will if I'm sober. We both know the correct method is to use the running 5 year mean, which btw hasn't changed in what? 10 years or so?
B: um... yeah I see that... wait a sec... wait... oh yeah! I have it! The measured temp readings you have are wrong!
S: oh great... let's hear this one...
B: yeah, see because the temperature HAS risen but it is just rising UNDER the surface of the ocean in places you can't measure... really, I swear.. my girlfriend told me... she goes to a different school... in Canada.. you wouldn't know her. Oh and also ... God buried the dinosaur bones so we would find them.. the Earth really is 5000 years old.
Straw man. Never argued this and never will.This is exactly what you are arguing. You have made up your mind that God created the earth 5000 years ago and the Bible is FACT. No matter how much empirical data I show, you are a Believer so you'll find some distorted way to support your position even if it flies completely in the face of sound scientific methodology. Doesn't matter to me what BELIEF you want to proselytize ... Creationism, Hansenism, whatever... it's still nonsense.

Last edited by AustinChief; 04-17-2013 at 01:22 AM..
Posts: 15,274
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 01:11 AM   #34
AustinChief AustinChief is online now
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12249
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdcox View Post
As far as action goes, the availability and cost of natural gas has bought us some time. I advocate:

1) development of natural gas resources in an environmentally sensible way. The key points are a) inspection and rigorous enforcement of good well head installation and maintenance practices, b) monitoring of shallow groundwater before and during gas development, c) effective management of water resources associated with fracking and proper treatment and disposal of backflow and produced water, and d) minimizing release of natural gas during well operations and pipeline transport.

2) aggressive conversion of coal fired plants to natural gas. Make coal plants have the same greenhouse emissions as gas-fired plants. Gas will come out much more economical under this circumstance.

3) aggressive continued investment in development of economical renewable energy

4) conservation and efficiency

5) international cooperation -- basically getting the rest of the world on board with 1-4.
1) sure sounds good to me, natural gas is a win win for the US
2) same as above, I'm all for it
3) makes sense, not because the world is gonna explode... but because no matter WHEN you think we will run out, the fact is, we WILL run out of fossil fuel at some point
4) I'm all for this as well, waste not, want not.
5) HAHAHAHAHAHA, good luck. Far fewer deluded hippies in places where they can't afford the luxury of being a Believer. Pretty sure EATING is their top concern. They could give a flying **** about our make believe crises.

Last edited by AustinChief; 04-17-2013 at 01:29 AM..
Posts: 15,274
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 01:18 AM   #35
AustinChief AustinChief is online now
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaid View Post
It's called planning for the future and if we can look at better energy technology that doesn't polute the planet it's a smart course of action. Oil isn't lasting forever.

If your ridiculous scenario would take effect then the solution is simple, release more greenhouse gas. It's a lot easier to put more in than to take it out. Your point is we don't understand it well enough so lets just close our eyes and hope for the best. I'd equate that to driving at night without the lights. Normally it'd be a good idea to slow down. You are saying just keep going because we can't know for sure what's in front of us.

There are reasonable steps we can take to limit the risk without totally slamming on the brakes. For example, I'm not riding a bicycle to work but I sure wouldn't mind a more energy efficient vehicle.
#1.. you obviously aren't smart enough to get in my head so please stop trying. Don't post what you think I'm saying. READ what I post and go off that. We'll both be much happier.

#2 No, I am saying let's not take any drastic action but instead be SMART and invest heavily in FINDING the right answers BEFORE we do stupid shit.

#3 That doesn't mean stop or even slow innovation in regards to new energy sources or conservation or efficiency.. that is just idiotic.

#4 My REAL concern isn't even the practical nature of any of this... I am here to white knight for SCIENCE. I want to stop the ridiculous scare tactics and more importantly I want to stop the ridiculous attitude of ABSOLUTE certainty that comes across like a bunch of ****ing Jehovah's Witnesses telling me I am not one of the chosen 144,000 going to THEIR heaven.
Posts: 15,274
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 06:48 AM   #36
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaid View Post
It's true we have a couple reports here and there that still say climate change isn't real or man made or whatever. There are way more that say it is real. I guess the question is that if you are wrong and it is man made and we keep making it worse, will we be able to reverse course? If so, great. If not, great world you left for the grandkids.
Likewise, if you go to war against climate change and sacrifice the economy to do it. If climate change is a real, existential threat, it's well worth it. If not, great world you left for the grandkids.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 06:59 AM   #37
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Direckshun View Post
That was Chicken Little, was it not?

There's probably a literary reference I'm missing here.
This reminds me of Gilligan from Gilligan's island. He and the skipper repeatedly had conversations like this:

Skipper: Bill Gates is going to be seriously upset by what Google is doing.

Gilligan: Yeah, I know. So is that billionaire who started Microsoft.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 09:38 AM   #38
tiptap tiptap is offline
Is this it?
 
tiptap's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Casino cash: $5527
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
#1.. you obviously aren't smart enough to get in my head so please stop trying. Don't post what you think I'm saying. READ what I post and go off that. We'll both be much happier.

#2 No, I am saying let's not take any drastic action but instead be SMART and invest heavily in FINDING the right answers BEFORE we do stupid shit.

#3 That doesn't mean stop or even slow innovation in regards to new energy sources or conservation or efficiency.. that is just idiotic.

#4 My REAL concern isn't even the practical nature of any of this... I am here to white knight for SCIENCE. I want to stop the ridiculous scare tactics and more importantly I want to stop the ridiculous attitude of ABSOLUTE certainty that comes across like a bunch of ****ing Jehovah's Witnesses telling me I am not one of the chosen 144,000 going to THEIR heaven.
So with the reduction in research as part of the cut back in government spending, where will this continued research get money on all the fronts of efficiency, conservation and alternate energy systems. Will we get it from coal, oil and gas? Their economic interest is seems un-altruistic.

As far as being a white knight, you have offered no hypothesis to account for any change in temperature. That better solution would be a white knight. No you are a diligent skeptic. Needed but to accept that we can not have any level of understanding, that the physics applied to atmosphere cannot be done, is to leave the area to mysticism. And to being hijacked by those whose religion is profit alone.
__________________
Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken
Posts: 5,007
tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 09:56 AM   #39
Saul Good Saul Good is offline
We Ready
 

Join Date: Jul 2005
Casino cash: $17007
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiptap View Post
So with the reduction in research as part of the cut back in government spending, where will this continued research get money on all the fronts of efficiency, conservation and alternate energy systems. Will we get it from coal, oil and gas? Their economic interest is seems un-altruistic.

As far as being a white knight, you have offered no hypothesis to account for any change in temperature. That better solution would be a white knight. No you are a diligent skeptic. Needed but to accept that we can not have any level of understanding, that the physics applied to atmosphere cannot be done, is to leave the area to mysticism. And to being hijacked by those whose religion is profit alone.
That post came full circle. You start out talking about research money and then finish by implying that you can't trust those with a vested financial interest.

There isn't any money in saying that the sky isn't falling (if you're a researcher). What does that say for their motivations?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
Colon is 0.7 WAR or 5M in value. He makes 500k. Getting pretty close, and since he's producing war each of the next 4 years of club control, he's fair value for Upton straight up. More than fair actually.
Posts: 32,297
Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 10:02 AM   #40
NewChief NewChief is offline
Greenbacker and Loving Liberal
 
NewChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Casino cash: $9744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul Good View Post
That post came full circle. You start out talking about research money and then finish by implying that you can't trust those with a vested financial interest.

There isn't any money in saying that the sky isn't falling (if you're a researcher). What does that say for their motivations?
Really?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...hicalliving.g2
Quote:
The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound science".

Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens' organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world.

By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus.

Also very interesting that it pairs the "denial industry" of oil with that of tobacco.... coincidentally two of AustinChief's pet topics?
__________________
In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.
- H. L. Mencken
Posts: 19,434
NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.NewChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 11:18 AM   #41
Saul Good Saul Good is offline
We Ready
 

Join Date: Jul 2005
Casino cash: $17007
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewChief View Post
Really?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...hicalliving.g2



Also very interesting that it pairs the "denial industry" of oil with that of tobacco.... coincidentally two of AustinChief's pet topics?
I suppose I should have said a researcher relying on federal funding. The researchers relying on federal funds say that there are dire consequences. The researchers sponsored by private industry say the opposite. Sounds like the scientists know where their bread is buttered.

I think both sides are full of shit and that their models are essentially worthless in terms of predicting something with this many variables. Like everything else, you can just follow the money. On one side, you've got people trying to collect taxes and sell carbon offset magic beans. On the other side, you've got massive corporations trying to protect their golden goose.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
Colon is 0.7 WAR or 5M in value. He makes 500k. Getting pretty close, and since he's producing war each of the next 4 years of club control, he's fair value for Upton straight up. More than fair actually.
Posts: 32,297
Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.Saul Good is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 11:56 AM   #42
mikey23545 mikey23545 is offline
MVP
 
mikey23545's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $10732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul Good View Post
I suppose I should have said a researcher relying on federal funding. The researchers relying on federal funds say that there are dire consequences. The researchers sponsored by private industry say the opposite. Sounds like the scientists know where their bread is buttered.

I think both sides are full of shit and that their models are essentially worthless in terms of predicting something with this many variables. Like everything else, you can just follow the money. On one side, you've got people trying to collect taxes and sell carbon offset magic beans. On the other side, you've got massive corporations trying to protect their golden goose.
You must remember we are looking at a three-headed monster.

We have the politicians and scientists feeding at the government trough, snarling viciously at anyone that they think might cut off their largesse.

The business interests making money peddling doohickeys and thingamabobs guaranteed to lower CO2!

Last, and most dangerous because of their sheer numbers and fecundity are the Acolytes such as tiptap, cdcock, and NewChief...


Posts: 12,249
mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 12:07 PM   #43
theelusiveeightrop theelusiveeightrop is offline
Spiraling down the Drain
 
theelusiveeightrop's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Dante's Ninth Circle
Casino cash: $12571
I believe the climate is warming, but man has nothing to do with it. Natural cycle.
__________________
"We're both part of the same hypocrisy, Senator, but never think it applies to my family."

2014 Adopt a Chief - Travis Kelce #87
Posts: 20,341
theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 12:26 PM   #44
bevischief bevischief is offline
....
 
bevischief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Dakota
Casino cash: $10921
VARSITY
I have been saying this for years...
__________________
Posts: 24,786
bevischief is obviously part of the inner Circle.bevischief is obviously part of the inner Circle.bevischief is obviously part of the inner Circle.bevischief is obviously part of the inner Circle.bevischief is obviously part of the inner Circle.bevischief is obviously part of the inner Circle.bevischief is obviously part of the inner Circle.bevischief is obviously part of the inner Circle.bevischief is obviously part of the inner Circle.bevischief is obviously part of the inner Circle.bevischief is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 01:36 PM   #45
tiptap tiptap is offline
Is this it?
 
tiptap's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Casino cash: $5527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul Good View Post
That post came full circle. You start out talking about research money and then finish by implying that you can't trust those with a vested financial interest.

There isn't any money in saying that the sky isn't falling (if you're a researcher). What does that say for their motivations?
There is no profit motive in distribution of government funds on the part of the government. For years, including research into Fracking for oil and Natural Gas was paid for by the Government. (The bulk of expenditures by the US GS has been in furthering mining and drilling activities for example.) That is not the case for the Fossil Fuel industry. You may think the investigators have motives to increase their funding but most of those assets are for equipment acquisitions and little to the investigators themselves by comparison. And any real malfeasance is pretty open to investigation compared to Corporations ability to act secretively.
__________________
Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken
Posts: 5,007
tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.tiptap must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:30 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.