The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Spill, Baby, Spill!

Status
Not open for further replies.

bensonga

Well-known member
For every scientist that 'believes' in AGW, there are plenty of highly qualified scientists that don't.
If it's correct that approximately 90% of scientists in the relevant fields support the basic science on global warming and CO2 etc....then your claim is not correct. At best 1 out of 10 scientists disagree.....and frankly I doubt it is that high.

AGW is not fact, of course, it's just theory based on computer models.
You are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is all about. These are facts supporting a theory. Just as we have the theory of gravitation etc....supported by facts.

Said models are now undergoing serious questioning as to credibility, due to the Climategate scandal...
Questioned only by those global warming deniers who will still be denying it when the polar ice caps are gone and half the world is a desert. The same sorts of folks who denied that smoking tobacco "causes" cancer or not so long ago, were absolutely certain the earth was flat and the sun and planets revolved around the earth.

Gary
 
O

Oxide Blu

Guest
Gary, there is absolutely no scientific support for the idea that man/humankind is responsible for any changes in climate, anywhere, at any time. Any belief to the contrary is only a demonstration in self-sustained ignorance -- that whole ostrich/head in the sand thing.

Do you even know how the current global warming scare got started? Do you know why it was preceded by a global cooling scare?
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Gary, there is absolutely no scientific support for the idea that man/humankind is responsible for any changes in climate, anywhere, at any time. Any belief to the contrary is only a demonstration in self-sustained ignorance -- that whole ostrich/head in the sand thing.

Do you even know how the current global warming scare got started? Do you know why it was preceded by a global cooling scare?
It's all Al Gore's fault of course. Just amazing that so many scientists have either been duped or are in on this global conspiracy. My god, even the CEO of BP is part of it now (BP is on record as saying the evidence for human causes of global warming is compelling).

Yup, it's all a sham, no doubt about it.....scientific evidence not withstanding. After all, why should we believe the experts in the field? They've tried to convince us of evolution too.....and as we all know, evolution is just a theory.

Someone's got their head stuck in the sand alright......

Gary
 
Last edited:

bensonga

Well-known member
Superb! :ROTFL:

It's just what the doctor ordered (no pun intended)......a bit of humor to lighten the mood. :thumbs:

Gary
 

monza

Active member
As a matter of fact, I use USPS all the time. They offer very good rates...perhaps too good...they are losing billions of dollars per year, and are asking Congress for...what else...a $4B bailout. It's time to privatize, like Japan Post, and open up the mail to competition. Everyone in the US knows what it's like to queue up at the post office, waiting for their inefficient employees. I routinely also do business with Fedex and the difference is crystal clear: efficiency, no waiting, great service, great attitudes. UPS and Fedex are also very profitable. Further, unions are a drag on management and efficiency, and pension obligations are unbearable. Time to pull the plug on this one and get a 21st century operation run by real business people who know how to manage.

Social Security and Medicare are likewise bankrupt. There are millions (like me) contributing who will never get a dime of SS. People complain about private health insurers disallowing claims - Medicare disallows claims at nearly twice the rate of all private insurers combined.

FEMA: everyone wants to dump on FEMA/Katrina under Bush, but there are plenty of examples of other failures. A simple search indicates FEMA has a rather spotty history at best: 1992 Hurricane Andrew in FL, where the "Wall St. Journal wrote a front-page article that quoted a range of disaster specialists who thought the agency was more trouble than it was worth."

Or 1989's Hurricane Hugo (where a senator from SC called FEMA “the sorriest bunch of bureaucratic jackasses” on national TV.) In comparison the 1989 CA earthquake was mostly handled by the state of CA, because FEMA was ill-prepared. "Nationwide perception was that FEMA was a failure, fostering a lasting impression of governmental non-responsiveness and incompetence.” More where those quotes came from here.

To be fair, I didn't state that government can't do anything right; I just stated my vote of no confidence that any additional regulations would make any difference and gave plenty of examples. I do not *hate* government, and this is not political in any way, shape, or form. It's just the nature of government in the US.

Time to rest the case. :)
 

monza

Active member
There may be 'no lack of scientific support' but that doesn't make AGW scientific fact. There is also 'no lack of scientific support' against AGW, as well.

Science is not based on percentages of who believes what. :)

That said, there are over 31,000 American scientists who have signed their names to a petition stating there is no convincing evidence of AGW. That is hardly unanimity for AGW...

You are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is all about. These are facts supporting a theory. Just as we have the theory of gravitation etc....supported by facts.
AGW is simply a theory at this point --a theory with serious credibility problems due to the Climategate scandal. When scientists repeatedly refuse to answer FOI requests, who admit to doctoring data, and refuse to release research data, it calls everything into question. Not to mention the financial gains for those who promote this latest crisis...in 1975, it was global cooling on the cover of Newsweek. Here is history of the various cooling/warming 'crises' over the years: http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Science is not based on percentages of who believes what. :)
Very true.

However, the fact is that Al Gore (regardless of how he muddied the waters by sticking his head where it does not belong) looks like less of a hillbilly to the rest of the world than many others.

Incredible given the fact that the US has the largest scientific pool in the world.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
AGW is simply a theory at this point --a theory with serious credibility problems due to the Climategate scandal. When scientists repeatedly refuse to answer FOI requests, who admit to doctoring data, and refuse to release research data, it calls everything into question.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

Not to mention the financial gains for those who promote this latest crisis...
I never thought of that.....thousand of scientists who have secretly invested in solar and wind power projects are now trying to supplement their incomes by contriving this "crisis". They've probably shorted oil and coal company stocks too.

You might want to give a little more thought to the motivations and financial interests of those who are so frequently behind the AGW detractors "research". These are the folks with a serious financial interest at stake.

in 1975, it was global cooling on the cover of Newsweek. Here is history of the various cooling/warming 'crises' over the years: http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
Very interesting read.....however, my concern is not with media coverage (which no one will be surprised to see is sensationalized and exaggerated at times), but about peer reviewed scientific studies which try to understand and explain observations of warming temperatures in the past 100+ years in the context of possible causes for those changes.

Gary
 

monza

Active member
One can't simply disregard what's in the media -- after all, that is how the AGW alarmists get their word out. And we all know the media eats up these kinds of sensational crises...where does the term 'media scare' come from?

Interesting link about Climategate, no doubt damage control..after all, if the well of research money runs dry...

There are several factors are work that damage the credibility of the AGW zealots. A primary one is when the leaders and proponents of the movement do not follow their own recommendations to 'reduce their carbon footprint.' Everyone knows the chief offender. There are plenty of examples of proponents flying all over the place burning fossil fuels and creating CO2, lecturing others on how they need to change their lifestyle so as to 'save the planet.' If only we would stop breathing... ;)

It's also very telling when the buzz word transforms from 'global warming' to 'climate change.' I guess that's necessary to explain record low temps and snowfalls.

And who exactly is the IPCC? Why, it's the UN. The same corrupt organization behind the Oil for Food scandal, among other things -- a political organization -- not scientific.
 

monza

Active member
Hi Stephen, if you are referring to the discussion about US government ineptitude, yes. AGW is of course a different discussion.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I quote: "Time to rest the case."
Yes, I think we're just :deadhorse: at this point. It's always difficult to know when to call it quits with discussions like this one. Law of diminishing returns I guess. While I appreciate hearing other points of view and reading articles I might not otherwise come across, the reality is we're unlikely to change each other's fundamental points of view.

Gary
 
V

Vivek

Guest
While I appreciate hearing other points of view and reading articles I might not otherwise come across, the reality is we're unlikely to change each other's fundamental points of view.

Gary
It is not a question of changing the points of view. It is just incredible that some such opinions would exist at all.

Col. Gaddafi does not like the UN either. He tore the UN charter apart to show what he thinks of it.

The biggest protest about the UN report came from the Saudis. :ROTFL:
 

monza

Active member
If there is a shortage of compelling information to support one's opinion, it's probably best to exit, eh? :)

Yes, it's hard to take the UN seriously when Iran makes its way onto the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Perhaps we'll get to see more about immodest women causing earthquakes...
 
Last edited:

bensonga

Well-known member
If there is a shortage of compelling information to support one's opinion, it's probably best to exit, eh? :)
Don't leave now Robert, it's just getting interesting! ;)

Just kidding of course....I'm getting a little tired of the back and forth since no one on either side is going to "see the light".....and I have a high tolerance for this sort of stuff (unlike my wife, bless her soul).

Seriously (not!), I've been thinking more and more about Al Gore's role in this AGW controversy. It seems to me that the problem really started when he invented the Internet. After all, we wouldn't even be getting into the weeds like this if it wasn't for the Internet.....so there's one strike against him.

You gotta give him credit for this though....that guy is smart (like a weasel or a fox). Somehow, he conned DARPA and other smart, geeky guys to help him design and build the Internet (he might have thought of it first, but no way could he have designed it)....all the while, in the back of his lefty/commie brain, he's thinking up the whole global warming/CO2 faux crisis.....knowing full well the power of mass media in the Internet age to spread these lies. And then he got all those brainy scientists to fall for it too. Damn, he's good.

Why couldn't Al just ride off into the sunset, never to be heard from again, as all other good vice-presidents have done? Like Dick Cheney, for example. Yeah, just like Dick Cheney. :ROTFL:

Just trying to lighten the tone here a bit.....although, for sure, always with my liberal, leftist, socialist, commie hat on (it nevers comes off, don't you know). Man, those Tea Baggers would have a field day with me if I ever decided to run for public office. I'd have to invest in some really good bulletproof vests.....heck, a whole suit. :D

One of these days, something interesting will happen on the oil spill front.....maybe my employer will even get that well plugged before the whole Gulf of Mexico fills with oil.

Until then......adios.

Gary
 
Last edited:

monza

Active member
Oh, I thought you guys were the ones that took off, heh. :)

Yes, light-hearted is good. Although it's probably best not to say 'Tea Bagger' if you are talking to a Tea Partier. :)

Adieu
 

bensonga

Well-known member
You're right Robert.....I should be more careful. I wouldn't want to offend one of the Tea Party crowd (I was only have jesting about the need for bullet proof vests). There are enough gun nuts in the Alaska Tea Party to make any sane person think twice before speaking his/her mind in opposition to their views.

It's just that every time I hear the phrase "Tea Partier", images like this one pop into my head. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top