Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

State of the Union Thread


sacase

Recommended Posts

Don't care, nothing will change.

 

Exactly right.  Nothing he said last night will happen.   What's the point of paying attention to this anymore?

 

Bush is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Clinton is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Reagan is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Carter is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Hoover is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Fillmore is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Jackson is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Jefferson is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

 

Hey!  Take it easy on Jackson and Jefferson!    You can eat the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So called Man-Made Global Warming has been shown to be a flawed idea at best, and a religion with harsh repercussions to the 'non-believers' at worst.

 

The majority of the money, by a LONG Shot, is in the GMGW backing, not the ones who actually look at real science.

 

Do you want to cite some real science?

 

**EDIT**

On a side note, 2013 is the warmest year not associated with an El Nino (where an El Nino normally causes warming) on record.  It is behind 1998, 2005, 2010 all El Nino years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do you ever bother reading the papers cited in the articles you post?

 

http://jadehawks.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/forbes-is-lying-about-a-study-to-promote-agw-denialism/

 

This links contains NSFW

Let’s start with the title. For one, the paper is not a survey. Surveys are quantitative, and therefore strive for large and representative samples; this paper was a qualitative study, with a sample selected on the basis of usefulness to the topic, not because it’s representative. Secondly, the author of that Op/Ed piece, James Taylor, claims that a “majority of scientists” is skeptical of AGW. Except that the paper doesn’t study “scientists”; it studies “professional experts in petroleum and related industries”*, and refers to them collectively as “professionals”, not “scientists” like Taylor does. Plus, right in the introduction the paper explains that “there is a broad consensus among climate scientists” about AGW being real. Which is not a group of scientists the paper studies, because its focus is not what the scientists doing research on climate issues conclude from their research. The abstract of the paper (emphases mine):

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/15/denialism-from-forbes-courtesy-of-heartland-hack-james-taylor/

 

The authors weren’t attempting to validate the consensus with this study, but rather were trying to understand how scientists working in industry justify their position on global warming, as they often reject the consensus view of climate science. When a true cross-section of climate scientists is sampled, agreement with consensus is found among about 90% of scientists and 97% of those publishing in the field. A more appropriate summary of what these authors showed was that oil industry geoscientists and engineers most frequently express a view consistent with the consensus IPCC view and a need for regulation of green house gases. A similar but slightly smaller number express hostility to the consensus view and about half as many as that think we’re screwed no matter what we do.

 

 

The authors of the original paper themselves stated that Forbes misrepresented their views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are wrong sometimes.

 

Engineers in partiuclar have doubted climate science heavily from the beginning.  There are also heavy doubts about evolution in the engineeering community.

 

(Do a google search of engineers doubt evolution and see how many hits you get.).

 

Since most engineers don't deal with the clilmate science and don't deal with evoultion, I don't know why their beliefs on the on topic should carry any more weight than anybody else's and why you'd include them unless you were trying to produce a slanted study in the first place.

 

And for what it is worth (and probably even most importantly), I fit their defintion of "skeptical" because I don't think we should comply with Kyoto.

 

"Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern."

 

Where 36% is the number that think we should comply with Kyoto.

 

But there's a big difference between we should comply with Kyoto, and this is happening, it likely will be an issue, and we should start trying to do somethings to prevent it and/or mitigate the effects.

 

And I didn't see much of the State of the Union last night, but I doubt that Obama did either.

 

**EDIT**

And oh that 36% is the largest group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Twa.. that one is funny :)

 

 <<<from the article>>>

To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.

 

so... the unbiased sample here is oil rig workers??? 

 

really?

 

 

edit::: oops, i got beat to the punch

 

 

I will say that this little exercise DOES shine an interestig light on Forbes magazine.   It took "editors" here about fifteen seconds to show tht the the Forbes take on the cited article was a steaming load of poop.... Does Forbes have editors?   or is it JUST an annual listing of rich people ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's 12 degrees here, much colder than average.  In Australia today, it's 114, much warmer than average, and in the 50s in Sochi, where Dear Vlad has promised snow for the Olympics.  And some of it's just what I've seen over my lifetime.

Like as a kid, I could be in the sun all day before starting to get burned.   It happens now in half an hour.  That is a sign of atmospheric change...a very notable (and visible) one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can get with giving incentives to companies bringing jobs back the the US. 

 

I don't want to give companies INCENTIVES for bringing/keeping jobs, I want to penalize them when they don't.  We can't give them even more money, they pay little enough as it is.

 

Penalize them for every job they export in a big tax hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are ya'll trying to claim there is consensus on a real threat?

 

oil rig workers  :lol:

 

Here comes the twa special

 

movinggoalposts.jpg

 

There is a 97% consensus according to NASA amongst scientists in the field that human activity is causing climate change. Using a vaguely defined term like "real threat" is clever though. Because when someone explains to you the dangers, they likely won't classify as "real threats" to you (and other deniers) and you'll simply move the goalposts again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are ya'll trying to claim there is consensus on a real threat?

 

oil rig workers  :lol:

 

If you look, my post dealt with science and not "consensus".

 

The "consensus" argument is stupid and a waste of time.

 

The evidence supports that climate change HAS happened due to our use of fossil fuels and it will likely continue to happen (just like the evidence supports that evolution HAS happened and likely will continue to happen).

 

That some people that had degrees in science/engineering have some hang up that prevents them from looking at the evidence and drawing that conclusion is not relevant to the evidence/data.

 

And the fact that some people disagree isn't really relevant to wether we shoud act as a nation because realistically we never require all people in the general field of a topic to agree before we start to act.

 

Do you think everybody in the military sciences thought we should invade Iraq?

 

Did anybody bother to do a poll?

 

But that didn't stop us from invading Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to address this personally to you twa,

 

If it makes you feel better going to bed at night supporting politicians that deny climate change and/or the need to do something about climate change (in terms of prevention or mitigation) for the long term good and safey of the human race in general, but even specifically in the US knowing there are people out there with backgrounds in science that pretty actively deny climate change.

 

Then that's good, and I'm glad you sleep at night.

 

But that's likely as stupid and dumb as a person that insist on taking antibiotics that are likely ineffective due to the evolution of resistence because there are people with backgrounds in science that doubt evolution can happen.

 

The likely consequences will be a little slower in coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still fail to see any reason why women get paid less than men. Women have vacation time just like men. Maternity leave. 

 

If theyr'e both working equally at the same job, why does one get paid less? How is this fair? 

There is a great statistical analysis that someone did at Berkely where they were able to identify the 'root cause' for close to 95% of the pay differential.  As I recall the biggest contributor was women being over-represented in lower paying professions like teaching and social work. The study's author was big on saying how the study was only looking at the 'what' and not the 'why' of these gaps.  Why do so many fewer women select higher paying professions... what do we do at an early age to encourage them to do that.

 

Very rarely do the pay comparison stats actually compare a woman and man in the same role for the same amount of time, rather it is the median womans salary compared to the median male salary without controlling for job/industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter you did not object to the game played by the consensus shtick for some reason.

 

Humans certainly have a impact on our environment and I fully support reasoned responses to mitigate them....and sleep just fine.

 

now run along and pollute China while hugging tree  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter you did not object to the game played by the consensus shtick for some reason.

 

Humans certainly have a impact on our environment and I fully support reasoned responses to mitigate them....and sleep just fine.

 

now run along and pollute China while hugging tree  ;)

 

If other people want to worry about it, then I don't mind if they waste their time.  I responded to a post that also dealt with science with a question dealing with the science.

 

You then directed a post to me that dealt with the consensus issue.

 

Like I said, it isn't an issue that has come up with any sort of other action in a rigorous manner (e.g. peope out polling "experts") and if your defintion of consensus is that everybody in some general area has to agree, then you/we will never do anything, but some how that hasn't stopped us from acting and continually acting in all sorts of other areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

No way. Under his presidency, we got Bin Laden, withdrew the majority of our troops from Iraq, saved the US Auto industry, bailed out the banks which in effect saved the US from even further economic collapse, laid the groundwork for providing healthcare to many in need, gave more rights to LGBTQ US citizens, etc etc, all while being handcuffed by extreme party opposition.

 

Far from a perfect president, but far from the worst either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here comes the twa special

 

movinggoalposts.jpg

 

There is a 97% consensus according to NASA amongst scientists in the field that human activity is causing climate change. Using a vaguely defined term like "real threat" is clever though. Because when someone explains to you the dangers, they likely won't classify as "real threats" to you (and other deniers) and you'll simply move the goalposts again.

 

 

yet going from the 'consensus' that humans impact climate change to inferring their support for solutions(or a need for solutions) is not moving goal posts? 

 

many among that 97% find that objectionable.....I just find it amusing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yet going from the 'consensus' that humans impact climate change to inferring their support for solutions(or a need for solutions) is not moving goal posts? 

 

many among that 97% find that objectionable.....I just find it amusing

 

I am going to quote you the official stance of several Scientific societies in the US.

 

 
American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

 

 

 

American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

 

 

 
American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

 

 

 
American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

 

 
U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

 

 

Basically all of the major societies within the sciences related to climate science support solutions and a need for them. I don't know of any climate scientists who acknowledge that humans are having a significant impact and then turn around downplay the impact and advocate that we don't come up with solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are some reasons I don't believe in man-made global warming:

 

Impass on Climate Change

 

Collaboration between EPA and "Environmental" Movement

 

and some great stuff here:

 

The Hockey Schtick

 

"In that light, consider the findings of a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Of 117 global warming predictions generated by climate-model simulations, all but three “significantly” overestimated the actual amount of warming that occurred during the past 20 years. The models typically forecast that global surface temperature would rise by more than twice as much as it did."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the story from the SOTU isn't the congressman who lost his **** and threatened to break a reporter in half and throw him off the balcony?

 

This is unusual? 

 

would be more interesting to see him try, just more empty promises :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yet going from the 'consensus' that humans impact climate change to inferring their support for solutions(or a need for solutions) is not moving goal posts?

many among that 97% find that objectionable.....I just find it amusing

So, we've moved from "it's not happening", to "well, there's no agreement were doing if", to "yeah, it's happening, and we're doing it, but I want to jeep right on doing it, anyway"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...