calfoxwc Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 http://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken Have a nice day. Science has gone for the political power and $$$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 so then the "scientists" who refute mmgw are also suffering from the same malady.....man that just blows the mind right? I mean up is down down is up at this point, who knows anything right? But let's be clear on one thing, the "money" is behind the anti mmgw studies. The industry behind the burning of fossil fuels around the globe is the most powerful in the world save perhaps for the arms manufacturers. But oil and arms are so intertwined now that.....ahh....you'll just have to read that yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 19, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 oh, that's ridiculous. The money drives mmgw. UN Redistribution of wealth, huge investments by Gore, etc. grants available only to those who comply... http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/scientists-refute-manmade-global-warming/ http://spectator.org/articles/55208/false-alert-global-warming http://wearechange.org/top-scientist-resigns-admitting-man-made-global-warming-is-a-big-scam/ Gore 'profiting' from climate change agenda -... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/6496196/Al-Gore-profiting-from-climate-change-agenda.html Nov 3, 2009 ... Al Gore has been accused of profiting from the climate change agenda ... put “ every penny” he has made from his investments into the non-profit .... As a man made Global warming agnostic myself I have to say if you look at it ... Al Gore could become world's first carbon... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html Nov 3, 2009 ... Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies. ... all is not well with the Manmade Global Warming credo, has published a new book, ... Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/ Nov 3, 2013 ... Al Gore and his carbon credit huckstering partner David Blood, both ... It was Skoll's Participant Media that produced Gore's feverishly frightening 2006 ... the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 Ur putting up al gores net worth up against the fossil fuel industry? You realize one lower level Saudi oil prince could buy and sell al gore himself on the nyse right? And have you conveniently forgotten about Putin who I've seen it written May in fact be the worlds richest man now because of Russia's seizure of their oil. We're talking potentially trillions of dollars. Gore is nothing compared to oil, coal etc....and no potential sustainable energy industry is even close either. Hopefully that changes in the future so they can have more clout cause it's high time to move away from fossil fuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 It is, we will and we are. Don't get your panties in a bunch. Right now today the most efficient way for the energy that you, me, Chris, Woody, old, Cal, Die Hard Demand, JB on a daily basis is through fossil fuels. Those of you, usually liberals, you see the world as if history began a hundred years ago could probably look over the past few centuries and see changes in technology. None of the aforementioned folks or anybody else here is willing to change their lifestyle and it's significant manner so just sit back and relax. The utopian society where we have all of our electronic ship powered by windmills and solar cells is on the way. Not tomorrow not next week but soon enough. The reason Al Gore gets mentioned is because he's a hypocritical politicized dunce who the anti fossil fuel Lobby put at the Vanguard of their movement. And climate change scientists are by-and-large funded by colleges and grants from countries and colleges and research facilities who stand to profit from panic. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 'Right now' is an extremely myopic view of the world, and leads to, well, the world as it is now. Regardless of your view of fossil fuels, we need an alternative as they're running out, potentially/probably in my life time. In terms of efficiency, once things like solar panels are up and running, it's a pretty efficient process - do nothing, get endless free energy. What significant changes would you want to see people making? Anyway, I would argue against people making changes as an effective tool to combat global warming, as it's highly unrealistic. People aren't going to stop driving around, using their phones and tablets, flying around the world, watching tv at home, etc etc etc. Fortunately, most of the things we do can be powered using clean energy sources, right now, today - the tv, driving, phones and computers etc. So we need to see government mandated changes to the way we supply the energy needed to run our lives, since we all know business won't do this of their own accord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 Me? The only changes in lifestyle I advocated are tiny little Common Sense things. We've been over this a thousand times. You think you're going to be able to turn the planet on a dime. Others say that it's too late now and disaster is imminent, blah blah blah. Any measures that would make a significant change in energy use won't get past the voters or the left-wing politicians who love them. It's just a talking point pal. The entire Crux of this discussion is woody says there is man-made global warming and Cal says there isn't. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 You're wrong on a handful of things in that post Steve 1) I'm pretty sure Chris doesn't think he'll be able to turn the planet on a dime 2) it would be important to note who those "others" are 3) a virtual consensus of climatologists and their peer reviewed research says there is man made climate change. Playing it as me vs cal is pretty ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 You're wrong on a handful of things in that post Steve 1) I'm pretty sure Chris doesn't think he'll be able to turn the planet on a dime Depends - put the dime on the pole and no problemo 2) it would be important to note who those "others" are Nobody reasonable is saying it's too late 3) a virtual consensus of climatologists and their peer reviewed research says there is man made climate change. Playing it as me vs cal is pretty ignorant. But everyone's voice is equal remember, we've got to listen to PoeticG tell us how trent richardson is going to be the ravens' leading rusher this year before the rest of us can talk about how to stop Joe Flacco and Steve Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 Except if woodys wrong, nothing....if cals wrong, outlives change and in ways probably a lot u dullards don't get. Its not some multi pronged sharknado or a hurricane the size of a state....although that last one is possible. U all don't understand how our health is on the line. It's possible in the near future that we have allergy seasons that cripple huge swaths of our population. People won't be able to work,medical facilities will be overrun. Nasty viruses getting nastier, we're one outbreak away of one of those already that would alter our society fundamentally. Point is gw is no joke man made or not. I would prefer to err on the side of caution but that's just next level me I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 If woody's wrong, we will have created a world with cleaner air and robust and future-proof energy infrastructure for future generations. The horror! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 You're wrong on a handful of things in that post Steve 1) I'm pretty sure Chris doesn't think he'll be able to turn the planet on a dime 2) it would be important to note who those "others" are 3) a virtual consensus of climatologists and their peer reviewed research says there is man made climate change. Playing it as me vs cal is pretty ignorant. The entire you vs Cal battle is ignorant pal. And remember we are talking about Al Gore. As ridiculous a spokesperson as any movement could hope to appoint. And the lefties have been bickering about cap and trade for decades now. And until government agencies think up something better than a money grab then regulations can blow me. When your precious Tesla makes a car that's actually useful for a price a human being can afford they will take more of the market share. No doubt, fifteen bucks a gallon would cut down on automobile traffic. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 19, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 fear mongering. You forget the higher taxes, regulation of everything, licensing/controlling everything, the political daggers at anyone who doesn't follow in political line, the redistribution of wealth, the political immediate persecution of all fossil fuel use...etc... "The sky is falling, we're going to run out of fossil fuels, blah blah blah" and we'll talk. Meanwhile... it's a bunch of baloney. http://www.livescience.com/37469-fuel-endures.html I'm fine with alternative energy fuel developent. But to politically outlaw fossil fuels as a way of gaining control over the money involved, via taxation, licensing, fines/fees, etc etc.... Baloney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 Your link didn't work. Also no one is calling to outlaw fossil fuels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 19, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 crap. It worked fine when I posted it. censorship by the left? https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2015/06/08/g7-fossil-fuels.html http://www.progressive.org/news/2012/09/178404/bill-mckibben-go-after-%E2%80%9Coutlaw%E2%80%9D-fossil-fuel-companies To that end, G7 nations have pledged $100 billion per year from public and private accounts by 2020 to help poorer nations “tackle climate change.” When I read this morning that G7 leaders had pledged to do away with fossil fuels by the end of the century, I thought I was reading The Onion. As if government could spearhead the innovation needed to get this done! But it is true – G7 leaders have pushed for “deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required with a decarbonisation of the global economy over the course of this century”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 19, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 nope. I tried again, and the link worked. Here's the content: Big Science is broken Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry ience is broken. That's the thesis of a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that's not even the worst part. Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has "self-correcting mechanisms" that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken. For starters, there's a "replication crisis" in science. This is particularly true in the field of experimental psychology, where far too many prestigious psychology studies simply can't be reliably replicated. But it's not just psychology. In 2011, the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked at 67 blockbuster drug discovery research findings published in prestigious journals, and found that three-fourths of them weren't right. Another study of cancer research found that only 11 percent of preclinical cancer research could be reproduced. Even in physics, supposedly the hardest and most reliable of all sciences, Wilson points out that "two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years — the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border — have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published." What explains this? In some cases, human error. Much of the research world exploded in rage and mockery when it was found out that a highly popularized finding by the economists Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhardt linking higher public debt to lower growth was due to an Excel error. Steven Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, largely built his career on a paper arguing that abortion led to lower crime rates 20 years later because the aborted babies were disproportionately future criminals. Two economists went through the painstaking work of recoding Levitt's statistical analysis — and found a basic arithmetic error. Then there is outright fraud. In a 2011 survey of 2,000 research psychologists, over half admitted to selectively reporting those experiments that gave the result they were after. The survey also concluded that around 10 percent of research psychologists have engaged in outright falsification of data, and more than half have engaged in "less brazen but still fraudulent behavior such as reporting that a result was statistically significant when it was not, or deciding between two different data analysis techniques after looking at the results of each and choosing the more favorable." Then there's everything in between human error and outright fraud: rounding out numbers the way that looks better, checking a result less thoroughly when it comes out the way you like, and so forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 Cal who is calling to outlaw fossil fuels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 higgardly the wench, and sanders the socialist, for two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 Are they? Like completely outlaw all methods of fossil fuel energy as soon as they land in the wh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/11/bernie-sanders-drilling-climate-federal-lands-ban Bernie Sanders Will Ban Fracking. Hillary Clinton 'Sold ... www.huffingtonpost.com/.../bernie-sanders-will-ban... The Huffington Post Feb 4, 2016 - Hillary Clinton 'Sold Fracking to the World' ... Among other things,Sanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drilling, ban fracking for .. Pushing Carbon Tax and Fracking Ban, Sanders Lays Down ... www.commondreams.org/.../pushing-carbon-tax-and-f... Common Dreams Mar 10, 2016 - Pushing Carbon Tax and Fracking Ban, Sanders Lays Down Gauntlet on Climate ... about climate change, about imposing a tax on carbon on the fossil fuel ...Sanders challenged Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to strengthen ... http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/268397-clinton-banning-fossil-fuels-on-public-land-a-done-deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 Banning fracking because it shits up land isn't banning fossil fuels cal. Try again or admit u don't know what ur talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 21, 2016 Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 Banning fracking because it shits up land isn't banning fossil fuels cal. Try again or admit u don't know what ur talking about? I seen it in a movie by God! WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 Sanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drilling Sanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drillingSanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drillingSanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drillingSanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drillingSanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drillingSanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drillingSanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drillingSanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drillingSanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drillingSanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drillingSanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drillingSanders would ban Arctic oil drilling, ban offshore oil drilling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 yes, cleve, you didn't read the links. the carbon tax is an economic ban of sorts. They will just use to make it cost so much they can't stay in business. Obamao said the same thing about coal electric companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 21, 2016 Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 are they banning all fossil fuels? will we be running our cars like the flintstones...yes or no cal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted April 21, 2016 Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 Well gftchris called for government mandated changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 21, 2016 Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 Keep moving those goalposts Cal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 21, 2016 Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 Well gftchris called for government mandated changes. Fossil fuels will run out this century. We need other fuel sources. Energy companies are still grabbing that low hanging fossil fuel fruit and will do so as long as they can. It is up to the government to ensure a smooth transition away from fossil fuels to renewables. That doesn't mean a ban overnight on fossil fuels, or indeed ever. Unless you want to ban dinosaurs, dodos and other things that aren't around any more too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 21, 2016 Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 This century? Then we've got time. 100 years ago we had steam engines. Relax. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 tired of the bogus claims that are just politically self-serving. Oil was supposed to have run out a years and years ago. http://guernseydonkey.com/?p=7430 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.