Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Sun May 24, 2020 6:06 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 870 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 6948
Location: Eastern CT coast
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:

I'm sending in a resume, it's 3m/5k to the Block Island Ferry :)

_________________
.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:18 pm
Posts: 7472
Location: Over there! (last)
Tom Toles
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 3093
Location: SLS
Congress: Obama Admin
Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans

http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress ... nge-plans/

A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.

The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.

The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:18 pm
Posts: 7472
Location: Over there! (last)
Once again, pedro promotes Fox News...or should I say Faux News?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 3093
Location: SLS
That's kinda funny because in the past election season , it looks like CNN , MSNBC & other ' news ' sites were promoting the ' faux ' news.
According to those sites , Hillary was going to win an election by an astronomical amount and the Rep party was all washed up.
Seems the only ' news ' outlet that had it even close to being right was your hated ' Faux ' news.
Might be another reason thinking people don't understand your side's arguments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 36271
Location: Somewhere in time
pedro1 wrote:
That's kinda funny because in the past election season , it looks like CNN , MSNBC & other ' news ' sites were promoting the ' faux ' news.
According to those sites , Hillary was going to win an election by an astronomical amount and the Rep party was all washed up.
Seems the only ' news ' outlet that had it even close to being right was your hated ' Faux ' news.
Might be another reason thinking people don't understand your side's arguments.



She did win my an astronomical amount (nearly 3 million votes, surpassing all others before her) and she lost the electorial colledge in 3 states by less than 1/15 of a percent of the votes cast in those states... :idea:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 3093
Location: SLS
I've seen reports that if you take Calif & Ny out of the mix , Trump won by a large margin with the popular vote.
In Calif you only need to show a driver's license to vote , right ? And you can show fake docs to get the driver's license so how many of those votes were legal ??
IF we didn't have the electoral college , Hillary would have won just from the Ca and NY votes but what does that say to the rest of the country ? It tells them that they don't count and that just pisses off a lot of people . Trump went to talk to those people , Hillary didn't.
That is why the system is set up as it is and imo , that's not a bad thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 5539
pedro1 wrote:
I've seen reports that if you take Calif & Ny out of the mix , Trump won by a large margin with the popular vote.


I'm a teenage swimsuit model if you leave out the age and gender part. :smoke:

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 3093
Location: SLS
I seem to recall seeing that on MSNBC
:wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:18 pm
Posts: 7472
Location: Over there! (last)
Steve Breen
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 5539
pedro1 wrote:
I seem to recall seeing that on MSNBC
:wink:


That might be funny if it were true.

Prove it.

But you can't.

So what does that say about your 'recall'?

I trust scientists more than your recall.
Because, science.

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 5539
Plook wrote:
pedro1 wrote:
That's kinda funny because in the past election season , it looks like CNN , MSNBC & other ' news ' sites were promoting the ' faux ' news.
According to those sites , Hillary was going to win an election by an astronomical amount and the Rep party was all washed up.
Seems the only ' news ' outlet that had it even close to being right was your hated ' Faux ' news.
Might be another reason thinking people don't understand your side's arguments.



She did win by an astronomical amount (nearly 3 million votes, surpassing all others before her) and she lost the electorial colledge in 3 states by less than 1/15 of a percent of the votes cast in those states... :idea:

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 3093
Location: SLS
punknaynowned wrote:
pedro1 wrote:
I seem to recall seeing that on MSNBC
:wink:


That might be funny if it were true.

Prove it.

But you can't.

So what does that say about your 'recall'?

I trust scientists more than your recall.
Because, science.



Does Humor Belong On A Zappa Forum Anymore :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 36271
Location: Somewhere in time
pedro1 wrote:
punknaynowned wrote:
pedro1 wrote:
I seem to recall seeing that on MSNBC
:wink:


That might be funny if it were true.

Prove it.

But you can't.

So what does that say about your 'recall'?

I trust scientists more than your recall.
Because, science.



I got it, it just slipped by him...everyone is a little tense with Trump in...hell he didn't even want to win, that is the funny part... :smoke:

Does Humor Belong On A Zappa Forum Anymore :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 5539
pedro1 wrote:
I seem to recall seeing that on MSNBC
:wink:


Joe and Mika are particularly terrible on there. I think I quit watching msnbc in 2014. There's still a couple fact-based people who talk on there trying to bridge the GAP. But they consistently get cease and desist letters from big corporations and death threats from trolls just for reporting the truth.

And No, I wouldn't make that up just to hurt somebody's feelings. Nor do I think it's funny.

Something funnier:
Experimentation shows that if you fart enough you can clear a room. This assumes that they have somewhere else to go and that your farts stink.
Experimentation also shows that if enough millions of tons of pollutants are pumped into the atmosphere, the pollutants effect the weather. People and animals and plants also get sick, and sometimes die. This assumes that there is weather, and plants, and animals, and people. Science knows what is in some of the pollutants and they are learning how weather works. They are also having to learn how they interact. Pollutants effect the weather. Weather also effects people, animals and plants. Soil erosion, too. It doesn't take an Ivy League grad to realize that soon no-one will be able to pay their 'disaster-proof' insurance premiums because of the constant droughts and floods and hurricanes where they didn't use to be, and the attendant loss of resources due to these lost farmlands, coasts and real estate.

People who run businesses that publicly deny the effect of their industries, I liken to greedy babies that won't change their diapers, or have them changed by somebody else. The governments of the world are willing to help. The industries that soil everything with their waste, by and large do not. They should be held accountable.

On a practical level I understand why the industries refuse to acknowledge they are the ones walking around with the filthy diapers, flinging their shit around on to everybody else - even unto the air!~ It's because they're greedy and are so damn full of themselves about the 'service' they provide. Most of them believe that it would cut into their profits to clean up their own damn mess. So, as a result, surprise, surprise, Trump and Tillerson and Putin want to drill in the arctic, now that it is melting.

What I do not understand are those that parrot the industries' talking points without getting paid for it. Yes the msm and cable snooze get paid a helluva lot not to talk about it, too. How is it to their benefit to do so, pedro, if they're getting paid to keep mum?

See? I'm trying to have a discussion!
Let's see what happens...

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2958
Location: Sydney, OZ
Great shit there, Punknay! Science is science, and bullshit is bullshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:18 pm
Posts: 7472
Location: Over there! (last)
pedro1 wrote:
Does Humor Belong On A Zappa Forum Anymore :?
Apparently, only if brainpang, downer mydnyte, and you approve. :P

Image

_________________
Image
Never argue with stupid people; they will drag you
down to their level and then beat you with experience.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 37093
Location: >>==> Wellington New Zealand
Right now in paradise it's a magical 21°C (69.8°F)

Max: 21°C (69.8°F)
Min: 12°C (53.6°F)
Latest reading

Wind: 22 km/hr. (13.67 mph)

Rain Today: 0.0
Humidity: 57%


Updated: 28/12 17:00

Today's Forecast
Cloudy periods and northerlies

_________________
hey punk where you going with that golf club in your hand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:18 pm
Posts: 7472
Location: Over there! (last)
David Horsey
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:18 pm
Posts: 7472
Location: Over there! (last)
Drew Sheneman
Image

Phil Hands
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 7792
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy wrote:
Caputh wrote:

As an explanation for why climate change is a "scam", I find them utterly unconvincing, particularly from clip 3 onwards, as they merely repeat themselves with an increasingly unqualified cast. I've already talked about #1 and #2 - here's the rest...

Video #3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrQxidb4xSQ) is by the retired weatherman John Coleman, who begins his clip by employing the reassuringly scientific language: 'The name of this presentation is "There is no significant global warming" and I'm the guy that is just doggone sure of that'. Unfortunately, asking a weather man about long-term climate change is like asking a modern-day plumber about the aquaduct system of ancient Rome. Plus, he makes the claim that the arctic ice shelf is increasing, a claim that is manifestly untrue.

Video #4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cxdzm2fnA4) is David Wilcock "debunking" Al Gore. Wilcock's scientific credentials also include the belief in ancient aliens, reincarnation and ancient prophecies that predicted quantam physics: I didn't find him terribly convincing.

Video # 5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0) is at least a Nobel prize winner! Unfortunately, he got the prize for 'experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in superconductors'. Ivar Giavever got interested in the topic of climate change by googling it in 2008. He has done no real research on this topic, is not an expert in this field and confines himself to manipulating statistics whilst reciting boring anecdotes about some trip he made to Berlin.

Video #6 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI) is an interview with Garth Paltridge, Peter Reid and Bob Carter, all Australians. The first, actually has some qualification to opine on climate change. Paltridge believes that climate change is happening, was caused by man but that its effects are not significant. Here is a link explaining why he is probably wrong in his final conclusion...https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ ... estion-17/. Peter Reid's conclusions are of a limited value as he is a marine biologist. Bob Carter, a marine geologist, has been effectively debunked here...https://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm

Video #7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFK-UTGH1Zw) is a hearing in which the "well-known scientists", Democrat Al Gore and Republican Steve Scalise, get into an argument. Scalise offers the equivalent of Trump's estimate of crowd sizes by denying that there is a scientific consensus. Neither he nor Gore are really scientists, but I suppose that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.

Video #8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg7nG3lw) is that other "well-known scientist" Newt Gingrich. How can I trust anybody whose Christian name is that of an amphibian?

Also some of them videos are a tad, er, old.

You appear to be of the opinion that the more youtube videos you post, the more convincing your argument is. Unfortunately, repetition of conclusions gleaned through transparently skewing statistics by a bunch of non-experts does not make those conclusions more convincing - at least not for me.

Despite your desire that one should be convinced without consulting any other outside sources, I found the following site to be rather useful in proving that all 8 clips contained no conclusions of value whatsoever.
The basic claims made in your clips about the climate ("Climate's changed before", "It's the sun", "It's not bad", "There is no consensus", "It's cooling", "Models are unreliable", "Temp record is unreliable" "Animals and plants can adapt", "It hasn't warmed since 1998", "Antarctica is gaining ice") are all debunked here...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/

BTW, did you hear about the draft report, published Monday, by scientists from 13 federal agencies that '[t]he average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years...“Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change,” they wrote.'
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/clim ... v=top-news

Yes, this was off-topic.


The argument has more to do with global warming being a scam and that climate change isn't happening as quickly as the left think it is. Anyway...

If you did in fact watch all the above clips, that's admirable. But 90% of the above is cherry-picked and indulgent in character assassinations, claiming that because some of the people, even though they are experts, are not scientists, therefore, they have no credibility. Instead of perusing the information presented - which you've only scratched the surface of (for example, you fail to debate the fact that many governments don't fund scientists if they don't conform to global warming beliefs, or that Al Gore's claims have thoroughly been discredited). Because with that 'criteria', then theoretically, Frank Zappa couldn't have been a respected musician or composer, because he wasn't traditionally trained as such. I could continue posting 1 clip per day like I did for the first week or so, but you'd just indulge in the same character assassination diversion tactics by either not looking at or ignoring much of the information presented. So why should I bother?! Oh and btw, last winter, Vancouver got hit by the hardest snowfall we've had in nearly a DECADE, and we just got hit with snow earlier this morning, even though it's only early November - which I don't believe has ever happened in my lifetime. And over the past 4-5 years, we've also had some of the coldest winters in DECADES. It must be global warming!!! ROTF!!! :mrgreen:

In other words, Caputh, and as usual, you include verbosity over substance. I've got one word for you...













...pathetic.


I, personally, could not care less about what Al Gore has to say about climate change. The reason for this should be obvious - he is not an expert. I am not an expert on climate change, neither are you. Nor is your dog, your mother, or your pet hamster. This is why I, as somebody who is not an expert, tend to let my views be shaped by those who I would consider to be experts. This is also why I refer to people who might be able to interpret data better than myself, you, your dog, your mother, or your pet hamster.

Your comparison with the academic qualifications of Zappa as a composer and the individuals you claim to be authorities on climate change is interesting, but, unfortunately, utterly false.
The reason for this conclusion is that Zappa, as a composer, was somebody involved in what one might call the arts. In the arts, creative impulse is the major criterion for determining value of the product. There is no physical risk involved in allowing the fruits of the composer's invention in being presented to a wider public. In fact, musical risk was what made Zappa's music so unique IMHO. In the case of scientific conclusions in whatever form (physics, engineering, chemistry, even history, if you like) there is a risk involved.

Nor was Zappa concerned with proving an objective truth. What he produced was "art for art's sake". One was not compelled to follow his philosophy (e.g. his views on sex would make most spouse's marital life extremely difficult), nor did one have to objectively equally appreciate all of his compositions.

Let me give you an analogy. Let's assume a city is building a new shopping centre. Why is that they are unable to accept the building design proferred by the architect who has no professional qualifactions, no matter how groovy it might look and prefers that of the architect who has actually studied the subject and is legally allowed to actually present a design? Obviously, because the possibility that the building might fall down is more likely in the former case, than in the latter.

Another, more specific, analogy. In 1988 there was a trial of the well-known Holocaust denier, Ernst Zündel in Canada. Zündel called as a witness an "execution expert", Fred Leuchter. Leuchter had gone to Auschwitz, hacked brick samples from the walls of the gas chambers and revealed that there was no significant traces of cyanide in the walls, thus no Holocaust. The court rejected his testimony as he was neither a qualified engineer, nor a chemist, nor an architectual historian - and rightly so. He had e.g. no knowledge of the chemical conditions under which cyanide reacts with plaster, nor of how the gas chambers were constructed, nor of the amount of cyanide needed to kill the people in the gas chambers. Therefore, his testimony was utterly irrelevant and unqualified.

Experts in climate change are experts for a very good reason. Last weekend, I brunched with an Italian geophysicist. I wanted to hear, as somebody who would appear to be an "expert", what his view might be on climate change, in particular how residues of carbon dioxide in mineral deposits are evaluated to create a picture of carbon dioxide levels throughout the world's history. His reply showed that he was a true scientist in that he said "My opinion on this is not worth very much, as it is not my field of research. I examine how crystals grow". Let me add that he was of the (unqualified) opinion, having talked to other geophysicists who were studying climate change, that the current climate change was massively influenced by man and that it might be too late to halt it.

Academics tend to be like that: most of them are true experts in a very narrow field, to which they devote their life. This is generally true, even in academic fields that are ostensibly "non- scientific"; I would not necessarily trust Ian Kershaw (a scholar of the history of the Third Reich), to give me any valuable opinions on the Roman Empire.

Thus, if you are going to challenge the view that global climate change is a lie, not caused by human beings or is somehow ineffectual, then I think that the quality of your witnesses should at least match up to the 97% of scientists who consider that the opposite is the case.

In consequence, I am not engaged in "character assassination" as you put it, rather I think it is important to know how qualified the statements made in the videos you posted might be. The answer would seem to be - not very.

Your claim that I have not engaged in the arguments offered in the 8 videos is equally inaccurate. I watched the videos, looked up background information about those who gave their opinions and consulted a site (https://www.skepticalscience.com/) that specifically refutes the claims made in the videos. If you want to refute those rebuttals, go to the site, read them and do so. The alternative is that I repost the entire site here, which would be extremely tedious.

I find it particulary curious that you seem to believe that there is some kind of academic conspiracy to propagate one scientific view and that this is motivated by the scientists' greed. It would seem blatently obvious that the people with the real money are sitting in the oil, coal, and car companies and that they are in a far better position to bribe climate change scientists to falsify conclusions. If something is accepted as scientific fact by nearly all scientists, why should funding be provided for those who challenge it? Should there be funding for research into the flatness of the Earth, the "fact" that the Earth was created in 6 days or that the Holocaust never happened? Surely that would be waste of funds?

Your final paragraph indicates your inability to look out beyond your personal experience and expect that the world reacts accordingly. Is the rest of the world really supposed to deal with the possible ramifications of climate change on the basis of your subjective experience that it has been a bit chilly in Vancouver for the last 10 years? Here, let me disprove you: "Winters in central Germany have been much warmer in the last 10 years".

Have you ever thought of the reason for why this phenomenon might be referred to as "global climate change" and not, at least recently, as "global warming"?

Substance, as you define it, would seem to consist of posting 8 random youtube videos, from extremely dubious sources, that deny that climate change is happening. Well, if that is enough for you...

I'm sorry that many of the words I have used have more than 2 syllables.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 5532
Location: Vancouver, BC
As usual, you're TOTALLY missing (or ignoring) the points I've made, especially by indulging in character assassinations. Many of the people in the clips I've provided ARE credible experts and scientists that aren't government or corporate funded. Yet you concentrate on the ones that aren't. Do you know how much $$$ world governments have given to many of the world's 31,000+ scientists over the past 30 years for 'research'? Nearly $5 BILLION. And these scientists ONLY receive these funds if they conform to the belief that global warming is happening. So are you seriously going to sit there and try to convince me that that isn't affecting their scientific judgements or isn't an issue?! And like I said, I can keep posting plenty of clips clearly proving that global warming is a scam but because it doesn't fit your political narrative, it won't matter, will it?!

The reason why I brought up Al Gore's claim again, is because he's probably drawn more attention to the issue over the past 10-15 years than many scientists have. In the middle of last decade he claimed (and many scientists 'agreed' with him) that there wouldn't be polar ice caps in 5-10 years, which is clearly now false. In fact, some of them are LARGER. These caps would be the first things to melt completely if global warming was happening. It's probably THE biggest lie regarding the global warming scam I can think of. And Al Gore made MILLIONS of dollars off it.

You know, Caputh...here's some advice: trying be more concise and less verbose. Because almost every time I read one of your posts, I have to flog myself into doing it (and I'm sure I'm not the only one).

Oh and btw, it's more than a "bit" chillier during the winters in Vancouver over the past 4-5 years...

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 7792
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
I'm terribly sorry you have such problems understanding the English language. May I suggest night school?

As usual, repetition without any reference to counterargument would appear to be your favoured tactic. In fact, if you flog yourself a little more, you might find that I've already answered the points you make.

However, at the risk of repeating myself as well...

Here is a list of the people who I would not regard as experts on climate change, whom you have cited up to now. And, BTW, this is not character assassination - it's character suicide.

Ron Paul (gynaecologist and politician)

Rand Paul (doctor of ophthalmology and politician)

Al Gore (politician)

Don Easterbrook (debunked here: https://skepticalscience.com/don-easter ... ality.html)

Martin Durkin (filmmaker, debunked here: http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html)

Any member of "Friends of Science" (financed by the fossil fuel industry https://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott- ... 55254.html)

Nigel Lawson (ex-chancellor of the exchequer, refuses to reveal who is financing his climate change denial organisation, it turns out it is the fossil fuel industry https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... on-funders)

John Coleman (ex-weatherman and, frankly, a liar as he claims that arctic ice shelf has grown. Debunked here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... al-warming)

David Wilcock (weird conspiracy theorist, believer in alien prophecies and a bit mad. A great article here: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/david ... t-atlantis which shows how he claims that "an Evil "Cabal" of Aliens and Democrats Are Trying to Stop Trump from Defeating Evil, Revealing Truth about Atlantis")

Patrick Moore (ecologist/not a climate change researcher, "research" into climate change financed by the logging industry https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rick-moore)

Ivar Giavever (not his field of study, inadequate research on the topic, debunked here: https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaev ... ntist.html)

Peter Reid (marine biologist)

Bob Carter (debunked here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm)

Steve Scalise (politician)

Newt Gingrich (politician)

Which leaves us with...

... Garth Paltridge, who is theoretically an expert. Garth seems a little like you in that in his book "the Climate Caper" he posits a global conspiracy of scientists to falsify science without actually dealing specifically with science itself. I, personally,found the idea of previous global conspiracies pretty ridiculous (remember that other one about the Jews?) But if global conspiracies are your bag...

Which is not "many" scientists who "ARE credible experts and scientists that aren't government or corporate funded."

One could almost come to the conclusion that you just searched youtube for climate change denial videos and that you, yourself have not watched any of the videos you posted.

BTW. 30 years + 31,000 scientists + 5 billion dollars = a little under 5377 dollars per scientist, per year = not enough money to finance a global conspiracy.
This is also not enough money to justify your very own "character assassination" of 31,000 scientists.

In contrast, Exxon's profits alone for 2016 were 7.8 billion dollars.

Thus the potential funding for climate change denial by the entire fossil fuel industry (not just Exxon), the logging comapanies, the car manufacturers, the oil-producing nations is much greater than the funds provided by governments for climate change research. As we can see above, they are already flinging money out to anybody (c.f. "Friends of Science") prepared to deny climate change. If scientists were so corrupt then surely the temptations offered by the fossil fuel industry would be irresistable.

To prove how circular your argumentation is, you once again make refrence to the fact that the North Pole has yet to disappear and the ice shelf on the South Pole has increased somewhat. This is something we've already discussed. Here is the answer to this claim.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarc ... ng-ice.htm



I'm dreadfully sorry that you're freezing arse off in Vancouver, but, once again they call it global climate change. Which means that some parts of the world get colder and some parts get hotter.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 5532
Location: Vancouver, BC
I don't have problems understanding the English language. But I have problems understanding your own brand of it. Let's call it Caputhglish.

As usual, you only answer the some of the questions I've provided and ignore the rest. And of course, you CONTINUE to indulge in character assassinations with just about every person listed above, automatically assuming they're discredited because they're not necessarily scientists, which doesn't necessarily mean they should be discredited. You can be an expert in a field without a degree or traditional training. And once again, you're compounding global warming with climate change. They are two different things. Not only that, but I never said all 31,000 scientists are funded by world governments (don't ask me the exact quantity that are government funded because I don't know). So your calculation is way off and quite laughable. Also, not all industries are even interested in, let alone preoccupied with funding researchers or scientists, regardless of whether they believe in global warming or not. So when one questions who's funded by who, you'll get quite a variety of answers from a myriad of diverse industries and governments. And once again, MANY scientists agreed with Al Gore's claims and were clearly WRONG.

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 6752
Location: Between the Badges
Disco Boy wrote:
I don't have problems understanding the English language...

Have you ever been more wrong? Well, yeah, but still.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 870 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group