Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on June 06, 2011, 11:47:05 AM
-
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Could%20killing%20planet%20search%20time/4891461/story.html
I was wondering when someone who didn't love the smell of their own carbon excretions would go ahead and point this out.
Yes, the internet uses a LOT of power. That "google" to find out what time the movie is playing, ends up using a HUGE amount of electricity. Some server farms use more juice than a Boeing assembly plant full of cranes, lifts and welders.
I've always held that the so-called "green" movement to get away from paper and transition to e-commerce actually would cost more energy than the previous paper system.
-
The so-called "green" movement to get away from paper and transition to e-commerce was probably just a way to put a green face on something people were going to do anyway.
-
The *expletive deleted*ing commies won't be satisfied until they have stopped all real progress...
-
The *expletive deleted*ing commies won't be satisfied until they have stopped all real progress...
Wrong. They'll be happy when We are living in squalor in caves and mud huts, eating raw-whatever-we-can-scrape-from-the-earth, while They live in the highest luxury that would make today's standards seem petty...
-
Wait.
People still believe in Global Warming? That crap's worse harder to kill then zombies.
-
What caliber for global warming?
There are some real whackjobs out there. I didn't clcik the link but Drudge had a teaser about some climate change activist that wants to brand climate change deniers.
-
Yes, the internet uses a LOT of power. That "google" to find out what time the movie is playing, ends up using a HUGE amount of electricity. Some server farms use more juice than a Boeing assembly plant full of cranes, lifts and welders.
I've always held that the so-called "green" movement to get away from paper and transition to e-commerce actually would cost more energy than the previous paper system.
So you can't get something for nothing, and entertainment and information still require power and resources, even if no trees are killed?
-
Wait.
People still believe in Global Warming? That crap's worse harder to kill then zombies.
Don't the majority of climate scientist believe in global warming??? I'm not aware of any trend in the scientific community towards rejecting it.
Popularly, of course, it's clearly in dispute.
-
Don't the majority of climate scientist believe in global warming??? I'm not aware of any trend in the scientific community towards rejecting it.
Popularly, of course, it's clearly in dispute.
I believe people have shown that a majority of scientists never really "believed" in it in the first place; certainly not they way it has been portrayed.
On the other hand, since likely the vast majority of scientists actually studying the climate are getting funding to study "global warming" issues from govt or political sources, they are not likely to go public with any claims it doesn't exist. At a minimum, they will say it needs further study and funding. The political nature of this subject has tainted everything about it.
-
It seems to me that climate change denial is at least as politically motivated as green activism - but again, I have never seen a shred of evidence that climate specialists are anything but overwhelmingly in agreement that global warming is happening, and that humans cause it.
Maybe you think they're all wrong, but there is no competing group of scientists or competing body of research that compares in terms of peer acceptance.
-
I have never seen a shred of evidence that climate specialists are anything but overwhelmingly in agreement that global warming is happening, and that humans cause it.
You ain't looking in the right place.
Being a global warming denier in some circles is similar to being the subject of a witch hunt.
Hell man, it isn't that we don't think that the climate is changing, its changed dozens of times over the history of the planet and will continue to change till the lights go out. We just don't think mans influence is what's driving it. And if the OMG global warming is going to kill us all crowd was serious about clamping down on carbon emmissions then it wouldn't make exemptions ofr the poor developing countries that need help getting their economies in the 21st century, like China.
One or two good volcanic eruption spews more crap into the air in a matter of days than man has done since the dawn of the industrial age.
-
Maybe you think they're all wrong, but there is no competing group of scientists or competing body of research that compares in terms of peer acceptance.
Clearly science is based on a popular vote of all the scientists.
-
Clearly science is based on a popular vote of all the scientists.
Ok, what's it based on if not consensus on the work???
How should we measure the worth of scientific publications if not the opinions of, well, other scientists?
-
climate specialists are anything but overwhelmingly in agreement that global warming is happening, and that humans cause it.
FTFY. "Humans cause it" and the generally poor data associated with it is what's done "AGW" in. Most climatologists agree we seem to be entering a warming period (but we won't know for sure for oh, 10K years, when we begin to have a statistically significant historical data sample for climate vs weather). Many argue, and present good data, that humans may contribute to it. Generally only whack jobs like James Hansen insist it's human caused and human driven.
-
It seems to me that climate change denial is at least as politically motivated as green activism - but again, I have never seen a shred of evidence that climate specialists are anything but overwhelmingly in agreement that global warming is happening, and that humans cause it.
Maybe you think they're all wrong, but there is no competing group of scientists or competing body of research that compares in terms of peer acceptance.
And pro climate change is motivated by money. You can't get multi million dollar grants to study polar ice caps or create hockey stick graphs by saying "yeah, we aren't really sure if the climate is changing or not". Zomg! Teh Skie its falling!!! one1! is how you get scientific paydays.
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/11/scientists-make-their-anti-global-warming-case/
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6178&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=NOAA%20Scientist%20Says%20%22Censorship%22%20Began%20About%20Four%20Years%20Ago%20&Cache=False
Disagree, be banned
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
And, of course, we have climategate. Much of the scientific community based thier findings off the hockey stick graph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
The green tree has red roots.
"The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third-world countries in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, a ‘climate debt,’ because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we’ve been screwing up the climate. We haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/lord-mockton-the-climate-change-treaty-is-a-communist-trojan-horse-2009-11#ixzz1OgrIpZpe
http://www.votecommunist.ca/2011/04/16/commentary-climate-change/
But hey, I'm sure you'll find a way to poopoo my counterargument. ;/
-
I wonder how much coal and natural gas is used to create how much electricity to recycle?
Is it possible that recycling causes more "pollution" than not doing so?
-
Jamis, I'm not sure how that is even a counter argument - you're claiming all the science is rigged. I didn't comment on whether it was rigged - I pointed out (rightly, as far as I'm aware) that there is scientific consensus on human caused global warming.
Maybe you don't accept it for other reasons, but certainly the academic consensus doesn't support rejecting the global warming theories.
-
FTFY. "Humans cause it" and the generally poor data associated with it is what's done "AGW" in. Most climatologists agree we seem to be entering a warming period (but we won't know for sure for oh, 10K years, when we begin to have a statistically significant historical data sample for climate vs weather). Many argue, and present good data, that humans may contribute to it. Generally only whack jobs like James Hansen insist it's human caused and human driven.
Again, my question is - why do the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think that the available data is significant and a basis for claiming that humans have caused global warming?
How come they haven't noticed that there's not enough data to make that conclusion?
It seems a bit conspiracy-theor-ish to claim that they're all bought to the point of academic dishonesty. I'm not sure how you'd get nearly every expert in the field to go along with the same lie, with virtually no dissent.
-
Again, my question is - why do the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think that the available data is significant and a basis for claiming that humans have caused global warming?
Simple.
1. There is a lot of money available (grants) to pay for academics to study global warming, there is little available to the dissenters.
2. Just about all climate researchers are on the public dole.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv635%2Fbrimic%2Fcru.jpg&hash=ecadc5eea6b8ccc7e5a8d24a5787f846ebb50e7c)
-
Wrong. They'll be happy when We are living in squalor in caves and mud huts, eating raw-whatever-we-can-scrape-from-the-earth, while They live in the highest luxury that would make today's standards seem petty...
We'll only have to go back to the Middle Ages to achieve that. That was a good time to be alive--if you were a monarch, nobility, or a high-ranking prelate. =D
-
Jamis, I'm not sure how that is even a counter argument - you're claiming all the science is rigged. I didn't comment on whether it was rigged - I pointed out (rightly, as far as I'm aware) that there is scientific consensus on human caused global warming.
Maybe you don't accept it for other reasons, but certainly the academic consensus doesn't support rejecting the global warming theories.
What I'm claiming is that a small group has rigged results, and that a larger group has latched onto those rigged results and run with it. And when those results were discredited, the other "scientists" have just continued selling us a line of bullshit like nothing happened. And, on top of that, the wealth redistribution bent of the Climate Change groups has become more and more vocal.
There is a lot of money at stake here. Grants in the hundreds of millions. Carbon credits. Six figure government jobs. Multi billion dollar government and UN contracts. Add in a sprinkling of real honest to goodness Communists who know that by controlling us through environmentalisim, they can take our wealth and redistribute it to the poor and third world countries.
So yes, Virginia, there is a conspiracy.
-
Holy dog *expletive deleted*it, I find myself in agreement with De Selby.
-
Ok, what's it based on if not consensus on the work???
How should we measure the worth of scientific publications if not the opinions of, well, other scientists?
Perhaps we should start with things like falsifiable predictions, a logically-consistent analysis, etc.
-
There can be no consensus in science. In science, a thing either is or it isn't. Planetary climate change is an historical fact. It is. Whether humanity has any major influence on that, well, it doesn't. Most of the evidence that claims humanity is responsible has been shown to be mostly fraudulent.
Can some reasonable things be done to reduce the rather minor impact man has on his environment? Well, we have done so. More so in the USA than anywhere. But the jury is still out on whether we should continue on the foolish path we've been on with regard to stultifying progress in all the ways that has caused man to slowly be able to live a life that is not rough, miserable and short. The conversion of our surroundings in a thoughtful and careful way into energy is the lifeblood of a progressive life.
The fact that we have not exploited our domestic on and offshore resources in oil, gas and coal since the Arab Energy Embargo of 1974 so that we could have become independent of those resources from places that were one step above living in a cave and have a stone age, tribalist, misogynist, murderous religious expansionist culture has been the single greatest sin perpetrated on Western Civilization in general and America specifically by the political establishment and so called progressive movement.
-
Climate change I can believe.
The last four years in Montana seem to indicate that we are slipping into another ice age.
-
Perhaps we should start with things like falsifiable predictions, a logically-consistent analysis, etc.
Again, the scientists who study these matters seem to think there are falsifiable predictions and that the data support previous ones - like Jamis explained, there may be reasons why they fabricate these beliefs apart from scientific study.
I do find it a bit hard to accept that universities all over the world, staffed by people whose jobs can't be taken away, have bought into the conspiracy so wholesale that they refuse to poke holes in the existing work. You'd think someone would, and that some of his peers would join in, well, sort of like the conspiracy that supposedly led to the global warming theory.
It's not like debunking warming is without it's own grants and finders - look at how much money the energy companies and political parties spend on debunking it.
Why has all that corporate funding failed to generate any significant disputes in the scientific community?
-
I read somewhere a few years back that legitimate, fiercely committed scientists who's whole lives are intimately involved in the field of science that they love, generally do not sound off publicly about things they know. That silence is rooted in the fear of their dogma besotted peers who tend to rip apart things that tend to not support the conventional wisdom.
Trouble is, conventional wisdom is tangled up in politics and the seeking of tax supported grants. The other thing that bothers me is when scientists supported by the private sector are suspected and those funded by political theology are somehow more credible. Those conclusions always remind me that in business the bureaucrats in cubicles in the main office are more wise and credible in the ways of business than those who daily are in the front lines of the business.
-
Does anybody read Borepatch's blog? He's blogged quite a bit about global warming, and has found things that are quite damning when it comes to the scientific process, data handing and storage, the programming of computer models, and the interpretation of model results.
Above is the quick summary. Mash any link for further information if interested.
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-bad-are-climate-models.html
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2010/11/climategate-after-year.html
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/science-story-of-century.html
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2010/10/science-is-settled.html
-
The green tree has red roots.
http://youtu.be/PDXQsnkuBCM