What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

climate change times are a changin'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FreshFish said:
A really good public policy prescription in today's Wall St. Journal. I hope it's not behind the paywall, it is worth reading in its entirety. It is a way to filter out the arguments between climate change zealots and climate change deniers and re-focus the debate on the actual underlying science in all its nuances and uncertainties.
Click to expand...

They're called scientists.

You're either a rogue (Rex Tillerson, don't you have something you should be doing?) or a knave. I know you read nothing but a steady diet of rightwing crapola, and you're as creduluous as the poor sap who was still smoking 12 packs a day in the 80s because he believed Philip Morris was a morally neutral entity, but for god sake you fool, is it that you don't have kids, or that you just don't give a f-ck about them?

Stop threatening my eventual grandchildrens' lives, you vapid toady. If you must participate in public dialog, go back to college and this time try to learn something besides the fine art of sounding like a Dartmouth Review twit, you vacuous toffee-nosed malodorous pervert.
 
Kepler said:
They're called scientists.

You're either a rogue (Rex Tillerson, don't you have something you should be doing?) or a knave. I know you read nothing but a steady diet of rightwing crapola, and you're as creduluous as the poor sap who was still smoking 12 packs a day in the 80s because he believed Philip Morris was a morally neutral entity, but for god sake you fool, is it that you don't have kids, or that you just don't give a f-ck about them?

Stop threatening my eventual grandchildrens' lives, you vapid toady. If you must participate in public dialog, go back to college and this time try to learn something besides the fine art of sounding like a Dartmouth Review twit, you vacuous toffee-nosed malodorous pervert.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about Rex or talking to FreshFish?

If it's the latter, you're way over the top and tremendously disrespectful.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Kepler said:
They're called scientists.

You're either a rogue (Rex Tillerson, don't you have something you should be doing?) or a knave. I know you read nothing but a steady diet of rightwing crapola, and you're as creduluous as the poor sap who was still smoking 12 packs a day in the 80s because he believed Philip Morris was a morally neutral entity, but for god sake you fool, is it that you don't have kids, or that you just don't give a f-ck about them?

Stop threatening my eventual grandchildrens' lives, you vapid toady. If you must participate in public dialog, go back to college and this time try to learn something besides the fine art of sounding like a Dartmouth Review twit, you vacuous toffee-nosed malodorous pervert.
Click to expand...

This incoherent deranged rant is a perfect example of totally uninformed fact-free name-calling that interferes with people's ability to have a reasonable conversation based on actual scientific findings. A classic climate zealot that disguises his lack of education in the nuances of the real science by the passion of his rhetoric. You think that the louder you shout, the more convincing you get?

Wouldn't a person who was genuinely confident that the science truly backed his point of view be able to reason calmly and rationally by reviewing the actual data? don't tell me other scientists' conclusions, show me the data from which those conclusions were derived. I'm open-minded to be persuaded, but yelling at me is not at all persuasive, it just makes you look like a jerk.

There are plenty of people who are neither climate change deniers nor climate change zealots that are frustrated by the lack of reliable evidence put forth by either side. You have scientists on one side fudging data and retrofitting models; that hardly provides reliable evidence. You have people offering no evidence at all yet claiming to know there is nothing to worry about.

Climate has been changing before human beings ever set foot on this planet. Millenia ago, there were higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now. Yet the continents were not covered by oceans then. Plants thrived in abundance. There was more species diversity then than now.

How much does human activity contribute to the background baseline climate change that already exists independent of human activity? Suppose, without human activity, we would have entered a period of global cooling? Those are evidence-based questions for which we need reliable, evidence-based answers. If it turns out that, without fudging the data to get desired results, without building complicated retro-fitted models with little actual predictive value, we can develop a consensus based on actual findings and actual data, then that would generate widespread public support for corrective actions. If you are really so confident, then you'd welcome such an outcome, no?
 
Last edited:
Re: climate change times are a changin'

joecct said:
Are you talking about Rex or talking to FreshFish?

If it's the latter, you're way over the top and tremendously disrespectful.
Click to expand...

I thought his response was fairly restrained given the malicious lunacy of what Fish wrote.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

jerphisch said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for posting this link. It is very instructive as to how the debate has become so polarized.

If you dig down into their actual data and methodology, here is what you find:
-- a committee of 12 people on an American Chemical Society board issue a statement.
-- the American Chemical Society has 157,000 members
-- therefore, all 157,000 members must automatically agree with every detail of every aspect asserted by that 12-person board.
Now, you add up all the scientific societies there are, total up all their membership, and voila! 97.5% of scientists agree.

If you actually knew scientists, you can't even get 97.5% of them to agree on the proper way to tell time. For a person who is genuinely curious about who is actually credible and who is making stuff up, well, might not a level as high as 97.5% seem a little overdone?

Actually, it is entirely credible to me that 97.5% of scientists would agree in climate change in general.

If you actually dig down into survey data of actual individual members, however, you get a more nuanced picture; not every member of every association actually does agree that the major or driving factor of climate change must necessarily be solely caused by human activity. Notice how many qualifiers I threw in there: human activity has some effect, how much or how little, how does it manifest, how do we best correct it, what if it costs so much to correct it that it might be more feasible to accept it and adapt, instead? The last one completely accepts each and every argument about the cause and instead differs greatly on the response.

How much would it cost to adjust, compared to how much would it cost to comply?

Is that really such an unreasonable question? Who is going to pay for it, and how?
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FreshFish said:
Thank you very much for posting this link. It is very instructive as to how the debate has become so polarized.

If you dig down into their actual data and methodology, here is what you find:
-- a committee of 12 people on an American Chemical Society board issue a statement.
-- the American Chemical Society has 157,000 members
-- therefore, all 157,000 members must automatically agree with every detail of every aspect asserted by that 12-person board.
Now, you add up all the scientific societies there are, total up all their membership, and voila! 97.5% of scientists agree.

If you actually knew scientists, you can't even get 97.5% of them to agree on the proper way to tell time. For a person who is genuinely curious about who is actually credible and who is making stuff up, well, might not a level as high as 97.5% seem a little overdone?

Actually, it is entirely credible to me that 97.5% of scientists would agree in climate change in general.

If you actually dig down into survey data of actual individual members, however, you get a more nuanced picture; not every member of every association actually does agree that the major or driving factor of climate change must necessarily be solely caused by human activity. Notice how many qualifiers I threw in there: human activity has some effect, how much or how little, how does it manifest, how do we best correct it, what if it costs so much to correct it that it might be more feasible to accept it and adapt, instead? The last one completely accepts each and every argument about the cause and instead differs greatly on the response.

How much would it cost to adjust, compared to how much would it cost to comply?

Is that really such an unreasonable question? Who is going to pay for it, and how?
Click to expand...

God you are so wrong it's actually ****ing infuriating. The 97%+ comes from a study of published and peer-reviewed paper you climate simpleton.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Trump's withdrawing us from the Paris climate deal, joining us with Nicaragua and Syria.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top