Nails in the Coffin

[dawman]

exotic-parrot-wallpaperA.jpg

[braincell]

The vast majority of scientists think man made global warming is real and they seem to have a hell of a lot more sense than theologists and the loud idiotic vocal minority of conspiracy theorists on the internet! You can post all the stupid graphics you want, (by the way you need to go back to comedy school Jimmy.)

[siriusbliss]

The vast majority of scientists think man made global warming is real and they seem to have a hell of a lot more sense than theologists and the loud idiotic vocal minority of conspiracy theorists on the internet! You can post all the stupid graphics you want, (by the way you need to go back to comedy school Jimmy.)

Not the scientists I talk to (some at NOAA and GOES).

Man is NOT 100% responsible for 'climate change'. Get over it.
You can buy into it (in similar theological fashion by the way) all you want since you're paying for it anyways.

Greg

[siriusbliss]

Again true.
But the deniers always insist on the single ultimate truth...

Greg and many others have asked the question already many times:
Who profits ?

So ask yourself who will profit from denial of global warming ?

It is still freezing here. Ice Age must be on its way.

I'm ACKNOWLEDGING EARTH CYCLES - not the pamby 'climate change', or cooling/warming BS.

It's a shim/sham game and people are believing it's ALL their fault - with no financial options for US to benefit by taking care of OUR PLACE in the world (without waiting for government handouts) rather than pay penalties.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, and the gubment will deny the data anyways.

So, enjoy your 33 year cyclic freeze, and stop blaming me.

G

[valis]

The vast majority of scientists think man made global warming is real and they seem to have a hell of a lot more sense than theologists and the loud idiotic vocal minority of conspiracy theorists on the internet! You can post all the stupid graphics you want, (by the way you need to go back to comedy school Jimmy.)

A lot of scientists are also sure that a lot of theories are correct, in fields that they have no expertise in! Humans work off of consensus to define 'reality' so if we all agree on something, it must be true...? And 'experts' work off of "but of course if it wasn't true *I* would know about it" regardless of whether they have any real reason to have found out first about any number of things that lie outside of their slice of the dataset!

[garyb]

stardust, you still haven't explained the strange weather in the middle ages and then during the mini ice agethat followed lasting into the 1800s...

anyway, the point of this thread is that the institution that is responsible for the numbers supporting man-made, co2 based global warming of disaster movie proportions was cuaght LYING and SCHEMING to DISCREDIT those who disagreed with them when their email storage server was hacked recently. the head of the institution had to resign and the emails have been admitted as genuine.

BIG NEWS that is real regardless of one's beliefs, the global warming scare was a hoax.

[braincell]

Science is not always right but that is the goal. If something is proven to be wrong, scientists welcome the new reality unlike religion which does not frequently change and usually refutes new understandings of reality. The religious view of reality is the thorn in the progression of science and modernity! I would describe religion as backwards anti-knowledge.

[siriusbliss]

Science is not always right but that is the goal. If something is proven to be wrong, scientists welcome the new reality unlike religion which does not frequently change and usually refutes all new understandings of reality.

While the purveyors of CO2 BS perpetuate their scheme with the same religiosity - and making billions.

No one asks why the drafters and supporters of Kyoto range from GE to Monsanto - famous for being the number one war profiteer, and number one developer of genetically modified organisms.

G

[braincell]

All domestic animals and crops are genetically modified organisms. I am in favor of genetic modifications.

[Mr Arkadin]

I am in favor of genetic modifications.

Why does that not come as a surprise?

[FrancisHarmany]

All domestic animals and crops are genetically modified organisms. I am in favor of genetic modifications.

FOR MAN MADE genetic modifications
AGAINST MAN MADE climate change

How did that happen ? I mean, scientists back in the day didnt really see the climate change comming, how can you be sure the current day genetic-mod scientists arent creating future problems ?

[braincell]

We have to weigh the possible risks with the possible benefits and I don't think the risk is that great. We could create a bacteria which makes cheap and cleaner fuel from grass. If you had a deadly disease, wouldn't you want your genes altered to cure it or to prevent you from spreading it to your future children? It's not just about making tomatoes taste better. It's also about being able to grow large crops with less pesticides and less herbicides and less fertilizer.

[astroman]

first of all they never made tomatoes taste better, they made them taste nothing at all ...
second there's absolutely no need for artificial herbicides and pesticides and whatever
that stuff is only 'needed' in profit driven industrial agiculture - opposed to supply oriented food production.

they don't grow those millions of tons to help out starving people (somewhre on the planet) but to produce as cheap as possible and then trash the rest that's not sold profitably.
Btw I recently watched a report about a (large scale) baker here, who gives as much as possible of the bread that's not sold to charity, but still has so much left that he saves significant amounts of fuel by burning the bread in the ovens for baking the naxt charge.
How sick can mankind be ? the sky's certainly not the limit...

cheers, Tom

[Neutron]

I read somewhere that a tomato tinkerer said, now we have made them disease resistant, longer growing season, bigger, blah blah, we will work on making them taste like tomatoes again.

[dawman]

My Dog was genetically modified.
When the Humane Society sent a follow up survey they asked how was my Dog........
I sad it was delicous, thank you.
I'll have to check the Elk meat and see if it has the Monsanto stamp of " Genetically Modified. "

[FrancisHarmany]

We have to weigh the possible risks with the possible benefits and I don't think the risk is that great. We could create a bacteria which makes cheap and cleaner fuel from grass. If you had a deadly disease, wouldn't you want your genes altered to cure it or to prevent you from spreading it to your future children? It's not just about making tomatoes taste better. It's also about being able to grow large crops with less pesticides and less herbicides and less fertilizer.

huh ? where do you learn this tatics of convincing ?

We help prevent future childeren from dieing!
It helps prevent your death possibly!

anyway, man is not authority over nature. you seem to think we know whats best. and that proof based on assumption somehow validates stuff.....

[braincell]

Gene manipulation is permanent and does affect future generations. We are getting close to having the ability to eliminate inherited diseases from our gene pool. If you think man should have no control over nature, the next time you get sick, you should not go to see a doctor. There is a religion which dictates that god should be in control and it is called "Christian Science". When they don't take their dying children to the doctor, they get in trouble with the law and as far as I'm concerned, they should have their asses put in jail. Like it or not, gene therapy is becoming a standard part of modern medicine. It's called "progress".

[valis]

Progress Uber Alles! Down with the Christians and the Scientists!

Here's the basic limitation of the Scientific method: The Map Is NOT The Territory

It only describes a VERY simplified & limited amount of 'what is there' (for whatever 'there' you're mapping). Even in our holographic storage (our mind) our representations of what is 'out there' are just limited models that allow us to 'get a handle on' something. Mistaking that for 'knowing all there is to know' about a given something is rediculous. In the case of 'climate data' and a 'theory to explain climate change' you have a limited map (the dataset) and yet an even more limited abstraction of it (theory).

So you say you understand that science can only create limited and imperfect descriptions (this is the reason that the 'method' requires evaluation and is always open to further reevaluation.) Yet you also say that you're ready to tinker at will with every new toy available, as surely our understanding is complete enough to be better than having left it alone. "We are now finally almost able to" conveys excitement to investors and early adopters, it does NOT imply total mastery.

But the idea isn't to be 'afraid' of consequences, just to understand the limits of what is known and our mental abstractions which are taken from that. I see a doctor when I have a broken bone or cancerous lesion, not as a panacea against all of life's bumps and challenges.

In the parallel discussion of Ken's, he's introduced the idea that politics creates such abstractions to be used as tools, and that one has to be aware of the fact that while these abstractions are not 'the thing itself' they are useful to an ends. I would also suggest that sometimes abstractions are useful to limit discussion to what you want.

"Dispose with the idea that climate change is surely 'now finally' understood? You must be a polluter and selfish uncaring person! "

"Believe in Global Warming?! You're a fear-mongerer who wants to control the lives of others instead of letting them be productive as they wish!"

"Afraid of GMO's? You must be a bible thumping simpleton!"

Don't change your mind now, that might be spun as 'waffling on the issues'...

[braincell]

You can please give us a brief synapses of your post?

[valis]

Synopsis (sic): The Map Is NOT The Territory

Synopsis (2): once a troll...