MorningGlory Posted June 3, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 3, 2017 If Michael Moore is against it, it HAS to be a good thing. Why is this guy a celebrity again? Is it his looks, his humor, his intellect? No...must be something else. https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-moore-posts-zingers-galore-145409087.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanetChee Posted June 4, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 791 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 547 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/20/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted June 4, 2017 Michael Moore is a tool of the propagandizing radical machine that get naive spoiled rich kids to rebel and join groups like occupy Wall street. He's famous because he gets people to go anti-establishment while he's a Capitalist. He's taking their money as they buy his books and watch his movies that gets them pumped up. This is a NYTimes article but it's worth reading. Climate of Complete Certainty *That's my addition "...Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science (*of climate change) traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted June 5, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 5 hours ago, PlanetChee said: Michael Moore is a tool of the propagandizing radical machine that get naive spoiled rich kids to rebel and join groups like occupy Wall street. He's famous because he gets people to go anti-establishment while he's a Capitalist. He's taking their money as they buy his books and watch his movies that gets them pumped up. This is a NYTimes article but it's worth reading. Climate of Complete Certainty *That's my addition "...Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science (*of climate change) traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts." Very enlightening quote, Chee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 12 hours ago, PlanetChee said: "...Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science (*of climate change) traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts." And it is always the elites demanding we take on these abrupt and expensive changes that THEY do not take on for themselves. We have to change our lives around to be in compliance while they fly around in expensive private jets still polluting the air and still leaving a giant carbon foot print. It shows their complete and utter hypocrisy in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted June 5, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.66 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2017 14 hours ago, PlanetChee said: Michael Moore is a tool of the propagandizing radical machine that get naive spoiled rich kids to rebel and join groups like occupy Wall street. He's famous because he gets people to go anti-establishment while he's a Capitalist. He's taking their money as they buy his books and watch his movies that gets them pumped up. This is a NYTimes article but it's worth reading. Climate of Complete Certainty *That's my addition "...Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science (*of climate change) traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts." Very good article, thanks for posting it. I really liked this quote... Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t. People often confuse the science with the messengers. More from the article... As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted June 5, 2017 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Running Gator said: Very good article, thanks for posting it. I really liked this quote... Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t. People often confuse the science with the messengers. More from the article... As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.” Indeed. I actually saw a transcript of an interview that Al Gore did with Chris Wallace, I believe actually this past weekend. Basically, Wallace confronted him about his claims from "An Inconvenient Truth" and gave a pretty long list of the things that he said would happen in that film, which have obviously not happened. Gore's answer to this was that emissions had been reduced to some degree or another since his film and that has staved off catastrophe, until now, but catastrophe is still imminent. However, global CO2 emissions have not been reduced at all over that period. In fact, they have continued to increase. They have increased at a slightly lower trajectory, but have continued to increase fairly consistently nonetheless. My real point here, and to your point as well I think, is that this has been politicized to the degree that the actual truth is irrelevant in the current political climate. Most of what we hear comes from people who either have a political agenda or stand to directly lose funding were the climate "crisis" to either not have anything to do with humanity or to not be as bad as it has been portrayed. I would really like to see what totally independent, non-politically affiliated/non-governmentally funded researchers have to say about it, but I'm not even so sure how many of them exist at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted June 5, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.66 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2017 19 minutes ago, Steve_S said: Indeed. I actually saw a transcript of an interview that Al Gore did with Chris Wallace, I believe actually this past weekend. Basically, Wallace confronted him about his claims from "An Inconvenient Truth" and gave a pretty long list of the things that he said would happen in that film, which have obviously not happened. Gore's answer to this was that emissions had been reduced to some degree or another since his film and that has staved off catastrophe, until now, but catastrophe is still imminent. However, global CO2 emissions have not been reduced at all over that period. In fact, they have continued to increase. They have increased at a slightly lower trajectory, but have continued to increase fairly consistently nonetheless. My real point here, and to your point as well I think, is that this has been politicized to the degree that the actual truth is irrelevant in the current political climate. Most of what we hear comes from people who either have a political agenda or stand to directly lose funding were the climate "crisis" to either not have anything to do with humanity or to not be as bad as it has been portrayed. I would really like to see what totally independent, non-politically affiliated/non-governmentally funded researchers have to say about it, but I'm not even so sure how many of them exist at this point. One of the unique things about climate change data is that the entire data set is available on the net for anyone that wants to download it and study it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 5, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,264 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,993 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2017 If you can trust it's accuracy. I wouldn't trust what is put out by NOAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted June 5, 2017 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, Running Gator said: One of the unique things about climate change data is that the entire data set is available on the net for anyone that wants to download it and study it. The data itself is important, but experimentation and study to determine whether or not emissions has any negative impact on those temperatures is what is really important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted June 5, 2017 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2017 1 minute ago, other one said: If you can trust it's accuracy. I wouldn't trust what is put out by NOAA. Indeed. After an 18 year stretch of virtually no statistically significant increase in global temperatures based on their old model, they adjusted the model and, magically, the temperature is now rising again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts