|
Post by cyclegeek on Aug 22, 2016 7:41:49 GMT -5
I agree, but I also find it interesting that in spite of failed predictions (which Liberals never discuss) some folks continue to preach the apocalyptic predictions, and still believe that the strategy of calling people that aren't 100% all-in on global-cooling, global-warming I mean climate change "science deniers" (amount other things), is an effective way to debate the issue. Honestly, a science denier is someone who believes that the current science on anything is set in stone. This is how you can tell real scientists from climate believers. Real science is skeptical by its nature. It starts from the assumption we probably don't know all there is to know. Especially about a system as complex as Earth's climate. Believers, on the other hand, are basically faith-based. They think we understand it well enough to start doing something to make it better. Hell we haven't even been able to demonstrate global warming is a bad thing. Reason would seem to say that biological diversity is highest in the warmest parts of the world. Life seems to prefer the Earth warmer than it is. One of my issues with the debate over climate change is that any mention of the extreme swings in climate that occurred before man even existed is often met with more name calling. It seems to me, if you consider that, we should be discussing adapting and surviving the inevitable, not how to "fix" it. Additionally, I tend to follow the rule that when you see the pols actually walking the walk on something like climate catastrophes and end-of-the-world predictions, that's when you know it's time to take it seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 22, 2016 8:07:06 GMT -5
This is how you can tell real scientists from climate believers. Real science is skeptical by its nature. It starts from the assumption we probably don't know all there is to know. Especially about a system as complex as Earth's climate. Believers, on the other hand, are basically faith-based. They think we understand it well enough to start doing something to make it better. Hell we haven't even been able to demonstrate global warming is a bad thing. Reason would seem to say that biological diversity is highest in the warmest parts of the world. Life seems to prefer the Earth warmer than it is. One of my issues with the debate over climate change is that any mention of the extreme swings in climate that occurred before man even existed is often met with more name calling. It seems to me, if you consider that, we should be discussing adapting and surviving the inevitable, not how to "fix" it. Additionally, I tend to follow the rule that when you see the pols actually walking the walk on something like climate catastrophes and end-of-the-world predictions, that's when you know it's time to take it seriously. Indeed. When you have things like ice ages and warmer periods than we're in now in pre-human time frames, it's clear that natural variables have a significant effect on the climate that are probably beyond humanity's ability to replicate. Adaption is how humans became the top life form on the planet. Trying to make the climate behave the way we want it to is probably an impossibility. In fact, it's probably similar to an ant climbing an elephant's leg with rape on its mind.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 22, 2016 9:51:29 GMT -5
Sorry, but they are associated with our government. Where do you think their funding comes from? If we've learned anything from the green e-mail scandal a few years back, these scientists have created a giant echo chamber they shout at each other in with the goal of silencing anyone who disagrees. And there are scientists who disagree. Science isn't done by majority vote. All the scientists in other countries? Who knew our involvement was so vast. Science isn't done by majority vote. It's done by experimentation, and there will always be some who aren't convinced. In this case, mostly those are the scientists employed by people who produce or use fossil fuels. Surely you remember the tame scientists who worked for the tobacco industry who strove mightily to convince folks cigarettes weren't dangerous. And before them, tame scientists worked for the gasoline industry and tried to convince the world leaded gasoline wasn't dangerous. Some of the climate change supporters are tame scientists who are advancing the government's agenda. But many are not. As far as I can tell, most of the scientists who say climate change isn't occurring or isn't man-caused work with or for companies that produce or use fossil fuels. And when none of the expected results appear, science doesn't simply change the data, and declare success. That's exactly what the warmists have done all along. None of their dire predictions, climate models, or theories have proven correct, or even close. Every year we hear that storms will get nastier and more frequent, and every year we get fewer and less severe ones. The climate hasn't warmed in 20 years now, and there are several climatologists that claim we may be heading for a global cooling now. Until one of these alleged "scientists" can tell me the exact temperature that we "should" be at, the exactly proper rate for 'warming', and can tell me the exact temperature of the middle of Mongolia on Aug 7, 4322 BC, at 0842, I have no faith in anything they say about it.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 22, 2016 9:59:18 GMT -5
Those scientists are mostly funded by their own governments or the UN... Which is mostly funded by our government. Yes, there is. Leftist, Fascist governments are doing their best to outlaw all petroleum use. Holland is planning to outlaw all new gas and diesel vehicles by 2025, and replace them with unicorn fart electric vehicles. What they don't understand is, the electricity has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is still petroleum powered electricity. The goal is to control people's mobility by making sure they don't have private transportation, and must use government approved transportation. Keep people where the government wants them to be by limiting their ability to move around. At least, more than a few miles at a time. This would mean more if the predictions of the scientists were frequently accurate. Or they didn't define the thing they're studying down to a meaningless concept like "climate change". This is a tell that you're dealing with a scam. The Earth's climate has never been static. It probably will never be static. Climate change is perfectly normal. The concern is how is it changing and why. When you get into those details, there's a great deal of disagreement among scientists. But governments have gone to great lengths to paint a picture that will allow them to regulate carbon... A basic element that is necessary for all life on Earth. Which brings me to... Or it means the models are still evolving. But I'll give you credit; you've got the opposing talking points well memorized.
The tame scientists are those who work for corporations, where the only important rule is: make money. Truth is of value only if it promotes that goal. By definition, a scientist working for a corporation must be less trustworthy, as he has only that goal. A scientist working for the government may be untrustworthy to the extent that he is going to try to get grant money. But there is at least a chance he's honest. There are problems with the scientific community, but mostly they are caused by people who want to make money, find scientific conclusions that interfere with that inconvenient, and take the necessary public relations actions to move people around. And by people, I mean "Republicans". Republicans have had an adversarial relationship with science for decades; it's one of the reasons I left the party. So those that back reality are now the "opposition"? I notice that you believe every sylable of what the government spouts, but real scientists, that disagree with the corruption of science in the pursuit of one world government are somehow lying? When the warmists have been shown to be, not only wrong on every count, but lying and changing data to match what they are being paid to "discover"?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 22, 2016 10:05:09 GMT -5
Or it means the models are still evolving. But I'll give you credit; you've got the opposing talking points well memorized. The tame scientists are those who work for corporations, where the only important rule is: make money. Truth is of value only if it promotes that goal. By definition, a scientist working for a corporation must be less trustworthy, as he has only that goal. A scientist working for the government may be untrustworthy to the extent that he is going to try to get grant money. But there is at least a chance he's honest. There are problems with the scientific community, but mostly they are caused by people who want to make money, find scientific conclusions that interfere with that inconvenient, and take the necessary public relations actions to move people around. And by people, I mean "Republicans". Republicans have had an adversarial relationship with science for decades; it's one of the reasons I left the party.Sorry, you have that exactly backwards. It's not the corporations that are trying to use the law to silence any and all truth telling. It's not corporations that are blacklisting any and all scientists that spout anything but the Marxist party line. It's not the corporations that are funding more and more opposition research on the scientists themselves instead of the data. Governments are. And they are using force to silence some of them. The problems with the "scientific community" are that the Democrats are in charge of tax money, and they are paying the charlatans to regurgitate whatever the Marxists decide they want front and center. So, we get doctored data, data thrown out because it doesn't support their dictates, and outright lying. That's the Democrat way, since they can't convince anyone with even a room temp IQ that their agenda is a good one, they have to not only lie, but silence those that would tell the truth. It's the Dems that have never liked science, because it always proves the insanity of the Party of the KKK.
|
|
|
Post by Cowboyz on Aug 24, 2016 12:39:50 GMT -5
Gawker was a sleezy site. But I find disturbing the idea that a billionaire thinks it's okay to use his money to intimidate and punish people who say things about him. The next time he might set his sights on a reporter or publication that says something he doesn't like about his business dealings, something folks need to know. Reporters, in the future, will self-censor or be censored by their editors because the owners will fear putting themselves into his crosshairs. And it sets a dangerous precedent that other billionaires will copy. At this point I'd be happy if national comics mocked him for this level of immaturity, but I don't think it will happen. Good for Theil, I'm happy he had the money to take this sleazy rag down. How dare they out him. Let's face it, they wouldn't have gone after him if he were an average joe, that story wouldn't be sexy enough. Gawker threw the first punch and this is the price they pay.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Aug 24, 2016 15:00:34 GMT -5
Good for Theil, I'm happy he had the money to take this sleazy rag down. How dare they out him. Let's face it, they wouldn't have gone after him if he were an average joe, that story wouldn't be sexy enough. Gawker threw the first punch and this is the price they pay. The price of fame, power and wealth is that your life is under a microscope. It's unfortunate but it isn't going to change. Thiel's bullying worked. He will do it again. Others will copy him. The fact that his victim is unpleasant is irrelevant - what's important is the chilling effect this will have on those working to reveal what the world does need to know and should know. Suppose some legitimate news outlet had discovered that Thiel was guilty of some crime, and published that story. And then suppose that he successfully engineered their destruction. Would you support him as readily? You have essentially said that the wealthy have the right to crush those reporting things about them that they do not want reported. I will not mourn Gawker. But I hold Thiel in low regard for doing this. I also wonder how much of Hogan's settlement he is going to take as his return on that investment. Because it sure won't be zero.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 24, 2016 20:01:14 GMT -5
Good for Theil, I'm happy he had the money to take this sleazy rag down. How dare they out him. Let's face it, they wouldn't have gone after him if he were an average joe, that story wouldn't be sexy enough. Gawker threw the first punch and this is the price they pay. The price of fame, power and wealth is that your life is under a microscope. It's unfortunate but it isn't going to change. Thiel's bullying worked. He will do it again. Others will copy him. The fact that his victim is unpleasant is irrelevant - what's important is the chilling effect this will have on those working to reveal what the world does need to know and should know. Suppose some legitimate news outlet had discovered that Thiel was guilty of some crime, and published that story. And then suppose that he successfully engineered their destruction. Would you support him as readily? You have essentially said that the wealthy have the right to crush those reporting things about them that they do not want reported. I will not mourn Gawker. But I hold Thiel in low regard for doing this. I also wonder how much of Hogan's settlement he is going to take as his return on that investment. Because it sure won't be zero. That microscope works both ways. Gawker put him under the microscope, but forgot that they would be observed, and reacted to, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Cowboyz on Aug 25, 2016 8:43:35 GMT -5
Good for Theil, I'm happy he had the money to take this sleazy rag down. How dare they out him. Let's face it, they wouldn't have gone after him if he were an average joe, that story wouldn't be sexy enough. Gawker threw the first punch and this is the price they pay. The price of fame, power and wealth is that your life is under a microscope. It's unfortunate but it isn't going to change. Thiel's bullying worked. He will do it again. Others will copy him. The fact that his victim is unpleasant is irrelevant - what's important is the chilling effect this will have on those working to reveal what the world does need to know and should know. Suppose some legitimate news outlet had discovered that Thiel was guilty of some crime, and published that story. And then suppose that he successfully engineered their destruction. Would you support him as readily? You have essentially said that the wealthy have the right to crush those reporting things about them that they do not want reported. I will not mourn Gawker. But I hold Thiel in low regard for doing this. I also wonder how much of Hogan's settlement he is going to take as his return on that investment. Because it sure won't be zero. Being famous definitely puts you under a microscope but that doesn't make it right for anyone to out you with regard to personal matters. When you are part of a machine that does such despicable things you should be prepared for consequences. You call it bullying, I call it payback. There is nothing wrong with going after someone that has tried to maliciously destroy you and publicly shame you. It's the price they pay. Gawker is not a victim, how can you even call them a victim? They started the war and they lost! Actions have consequences.
If he were a criminal and the story should break, he should pay the price for whatever the crime might be. If he were able to destroy them as a result of that story, I would not support that. That's not at all what we are talking about.
I never said the wealthy have the right to crush those reporting things about them they do not want reported. I said I was happy he had the money to go after them. If it were to happen to me, I certainly wouldn't have the means to go after them, I would suffer in silence. I wonder how many lives have they destroyed? How many people have they shamed?
|
|