U.N. Climate Chief: Critics Should Rub Their Faces With Asbestos - Polidicks

[QUOTE=AngryAsshole;20068100]You know, scientists believe the reason Venus is so hot is because it's atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide. It's actually often called the 'sister' of Earth because it's so similiar in terms of dimensions. Same sort of size.[/QUOTE] Fun fact: Venus once had massive water oceans.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20089151]it's good not to give him the wiggle-room to say that it's their money and their call.[/QUOTE] Good point

[QUOTE=Lankist;20089069]See:[/QUOTE] debate over how to react to climate change is not the main debate that is going on right now. If you look at all of the punditry and what's being discussed in congress, it's debate over the facticity of climate change as a whole, not how to react to it. Your doubts may be more grounded in reality, but your doubts aren't the doubts of most. [QUOTE=Lankist;20089121]for very good reason, because it is our money.[/QUOTE] uh I'm pretty sure that the basis of green technology isn't "GIVE UR MONEY TO SCIENTISTS THEY WILL FIX IT", but rather changes to the infrastructure that taxpayers already pay for and changes in the environmental practices of businesses

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20089196]debate over how to react to climate change is not the main debate that is going on right now. If you look at all of the punditry and what's being discussed in congress, it's debate over the facticity of climate change as a whole, not how to react to it. Your doubts may be more grounded in reality, but your doubts aren't the doubts of most.[/QUOTE] Yes debating the evidence is unfathomable when you are considering what the necessary course of action would be and whether or not it would have any legitimately positive impact.

[QUOTE=Herr Sven;20084207]So this is what I get for believing differently after studying the evidence. :colbert: I'm telling you, this has become a bloody religion. I'm differing from the UN by the fact that I don't change the evidence, and therefor have gotten a different result.[/QUOTE] Or maybe you're not a climatologist, and just because you think you've "studied the evidence" by reading some blogs doesn't actually mean you understand the science.

Let's just take the first result as absolutely true and make decisions based on that. I mean Ethanol is working out great right! And hybrid cars too they're fucking WONDERFUL. I mean it isn't like the scientific method relies on review or anything. [editline]05:51PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20089196]uh I'm pretty sure that the basis of green technology isn't "GIVE UR MONEY TO SCIENTISTS THEY WILL FIX IT", but rather changes to the infrastructure that taxpayers already pay for and changes in the environmental practices of businesses[/QUOTE] Yeah except that isn't working. In fact it's driving us even further into economic shit between destroying engines and fucking with existing fuel sources. I know on a personal level that my car has a few more years before I'll have to get the whole goddamn engine block replaced. That would be almost tolerable if it actually helped the environment, except for how it's only making shit worse for my wallet and for landfills and manufacturers.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20089225]Yeah except that isn't working.[/QUOTE] humm maybe that isn't an inherent problem in green technology but rather the massive resistance to all forms of environmental legislation in government and the private sector?

[QUOTE=Lankist;20089212]Yes debating the evidence is unfathomable when you are considering what the necessary course of action would be and whether or not it would have any legitimately positive impact.[/QUOTE] Arguing over what to do is fine but trying to undermine good science because you don't like the proposed solution is disingenuous

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20089291]humm maybe that isn't an inherent problem in green technology but rather the massive resistance to all forms of environmental legislation in government and the private sector?[/QUOTE] Yes it is resistance's fault in the private sector that my engine is being ruined by the shitty gas that the distributors are getting tax returns for selling to me. [editline]05:55PM[/editline] [QUOTE=TH89;20089302]Arguing over what to do is fine but trying to undermine good science because you don't like the proposed solution is disingenuous[/QUOTE] But it isn't unfathomable and unacceptable to expect scientific research to be verified and confirmed/refuted by other researchers before accepting it. Nor is it unacceptable for people to try to poke holes, whether they are valid or not. That's how shit gets done. Responding to this sort of behavior by telling people to rub their faces with asbestos, however? That doesn't bode well for one's competence or scientific backing.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20089317]Yes it is resistance's fault in the private sector that my engine is being ruined by the shitty gas that the distributors are getting tax returns for selling to me.[/QUOTE] it's an response that is made ineffective by gutted laws and politicians who refuse everything that is brought to them regardless of it's validity, not a response that is fundamentally flawed [QUOTE=Lankist;20089317] But it isn't unfathomable and unacceptable to expect scientific research to be verified and confirmed/refuted by other researchers before accepting it. Nor is it unacceptable for people to try to poke holes, whether they are valid or not. That's how shit gets done.[/QUOTE] But it has been repeatedly verified, and it still being verified. What, did you think they just did one climate study in the 80's and have been going off that ever since? And there's nothing wrong with trying to poke holes in it, but you go "IM JUST BEING A SKEPTIC" every time someone criticizes the holes you're trying to poke and then ignore the criticisms they make.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20089363]it's an response that is made ineffective by gutted laws and politicians who refuse everything that is brought to them regardless of it's validity, not a response that is fundamentally flawed[/QUOTE] How is watering down gas with bullshit that tears up 90% of the cars in the country and then giving returns to people who sell said gas not fundamentally flawed? Ethanol is a knee-jerk attempt at a solution, a fucking dumb one at that. Pretty sure the world isn't going to be dead in a decade despite Al Gore's assertions, we can afford to weigh our options and do the busy work. [editline]06:02PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20089363]But it has been repeatedly verified, and it still being verified. What, did you think they just did one climate study in the 80's and have been going off that ever since? And there's nothing wrong with trying to poke holes in it, but you go "IM JUST BEING A SKEPTIC" every time someone criticizes the holes you're trying to poke and then ignore the criticisms they make.[/QUOTE] I'm not poking any holes, I'm not a scientist, I don't pretend to understand climate change theory. But what I do understand is how to tell a good solution to a problem from a stupid one. Thus far there aren't any good solutions that are economically viable at this point in time, and given climate change is not an immediate problem (especially compared to economic downturn,) it is entirely reasonable to have some redundancy. It's not bad to check the facts, it's not bad to posit problems or criticism, correct or otherwise. And it isn't bad to contemplate on a global scale. Shit we aren't even entirely sure what kind of timeline and effects we're looking at here, hence why it doesn't hurt to keep up with peer review and steady advancement.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20089388]Ethanol is a knee-jerk attempt at a solution, a fucking dumb one at that. Pretty sure the world isn't going to be dead in a decade despite Al Gore's assertions, we can afford to weigh our options and do the busy work.[/QUOTE] see this right here shows an opposition not to the solutions, but to the science behind it. If you were concerned with the solutions instead of the science behind it, you wouldn't mention Al Gore because there's no reason to mention him. He's not a climate change scientist. He's a guy who made a movie. He's no one, he's nobody. He's not any important person in climate science. So why mention him? There's no reason to.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20089481]see this right here shows an opposition not to the solutions, but to the science behind it. If you were concerned with the solutions instead of the science behind it, you wouldn't mention Al Gore because there's no reason to mention him. He's not a climate change scientist. He's a guy who made a movie. He's no one, he's nobody. He's not any important person in climate science. So why mention him? There's no reason to.[/QUOTE] I wasn't aware that Al Gore was a reputable scientist. See, I was under the impression that his claims of imminent and sudden apocalypse were entirely unfounded and downright hyperbolic bullshit.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20089388] I'm not poking any holes, I'm not a scientist, I don't pretend to understand climate change theory. But what I do understand is how to tell a good solution to a problem from a stupid one. Thus far there aren't any good solutions that are economically viable at this point in time, and given climate change is not an immediate problem (especially compared to economic downturn,) it is entirely reasonable to have some redundancy. It's not bad to check the facts, it's not bad to posit problems or criticism, correct or otherwise. And it isn't bad to contemplate on a global scale.[/QUOTE] You understand economics. You should know that huge reform and change to the entire infrastructure of energy production is something that, even in a best case scenario, will take a long fucking time. "Oh, we can worry about it later, we got plenty of time" is a silly attitude to have. [editline]04:06PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;20089519]I wasn't aware that Al Gore was a reputable scientist.[/QUOTE] That is literally the exact opposite of what I said in my post.

I was also under the impression that reasonable researchers on the side of climate change legislation were much more vague in their predictions and tended not to give a goddamn ultimatum. [editline]06:07PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20089532]You understand economics. You should know that huge reform and change to the entire infrastructure of energy production is something that, even in a best case scenario, will take a long fucking time. "Oh, we can worry about it later, we got plenty of time" is a silly attitude to have.[/quote] I am well aware that reform takes a very long time. Making it all the more important to know that the reforms you are making are actually going to work before you commit yourself to them. [quote]That is literally the exact opposite of what I said in my post.[/QUOTE] But I said I am against a politician. How does that make me against science? Jesus Contradictory Christ, batman. You've intrigued me. What is the logic behind this outlandish claim?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20087917]I'll agree with that, we need to skip this ethanol and hybrid bullshit and get right to pouring money into hydrogen infrastructure and new power generation. That's worth investing serious money in, not glorified handouts to corn farmers.[/QUOTE] I hope you like hot muggy days. Water vapor retains heat at a higher rate then CO2.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20089541] But I said I am against a politician. How does that make me against science? Jesus Contradictory Christ, batman[/QUOTE] Because you mention him as if he's the figurehead of that science. He's not, he's a nobody. He's no one.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20089591]Because you mention him as if he's the figurehead of that science.[/QUOTE] Please do quote whatever gave you that impression. I said that the SOLUTION proposed via ethanol was knee-jerk due to the hyperbolic claims of people like Al Gore. And what you took away from this is that I think Al Gore is the president of science?

[QUOTE=TH89;20089221]Or maybe you're not a climatologist, and just because you think you've "studied the evidence" by reading some blogs doesn't actually mean you understand the science.[/QUOTE] And that people think I'm an idiot. [QUOTE]just because you think you've "studied the evidence" by reading some blogs[/QUOTE]I don't read blogs. And the evidence I've looked at is the same that is used by the climatologists, and note the word "Neutral". [QUOTE]doesn't actually mean you understand the science.[/QUOTE]Incorrect, I understand the science, that's why I have an hypothesis.

[QUOTE=Herr Sven;20089626]Incorrect, I understand the science, that's why I have an hypothesis.[/QUOTE] i have a hypothesis you are uneducated i will be conducting the research starting: now

[QUOTE=Lankist;20089607]Please do quote whatever gave you that impression. I said that the SOLUTION proposed via ethanol was knee-jerk due to the hyperbolic claims of people like Al Gore. And what you took away from this is that I think Al Gore is the president of science?[/QUOTE] you seem to be ok with the science that says that there is some form of man-made climate change, but you immediately dismiss any claim that posits any sort of urgency in the matter. Why exactly is that?

[QUOTE=Lankist;20089642]i have a hypothesis you are uneducated i will be conducting the research starting: now[/QUOTE] Yay, "he have a different hypothesis, therefor he's an idiot" again.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20089687]you seem to be ok with the science that says that there is some form of man-made climate change, but you immediately dismiss any claim that posits any sort of urgency in the matter. Why exactly is that?[/QUOTE] Were I to be presented a reasonable amount of evidence that we are facing an impending apocalypse in the next ten years I would be singing a different tune. Until that point climate change is a much less urgent matter than, say, ensuring we fucking HAVE the money to pay for climate-related infrastructure a decade or two down the road. we blow all of our money now and figure out fifty years from now that we fucked up and didn't fix anything not only are we facing that hypothesized apocalypse but we are facing it with no resources and no viable infrastructure. Comparatively speaking, should we solve the more urgent issues like economic instability we would have much better hope of not only understanding but also solving climate-related issues further down the road. I'm fairly certain, even as a layman, that we are not living in a Dan Brown movie, and that shit doesn't happen so fast that we need to blow our fiscal load immediately for any hope of survival, especially based on previous issues similar to this one. Take the hysteria out of the equation and you have a very simple road to success. [editline]06:18PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Herr Sven;20089763]Yay, "he have a different hypothesis, therefor he's an idiot" again.[/QUOTE] Survey question one: Are you educated?

Heres the conversation I heard yesterday from 2 local rednecks while shoveling snow out of my driveway. Redneck 1: Look all dis snow man Redneck 2: Yah i bet its global warming, like all them commy liberals said Redneck 1: Huck huck, yah globah warmin, cause its so warm out here huck huck

[QUOTE=Lankist;20089776] Survey question one: Are you educated?[/QUOTE] I indeed am.

[QUOTE=Herr Sven;20097461]I indeed am.[/QUOTE] Survey question two: what are your credentials

Simply a stupid thing to say no matter what side you are on. Disagree with me? Go get cancer.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20089388]I'm not poking any holes, I'm not a scientist, I don't pretend to understand climate change theory. But what I do understand is how to tell a good solution to a problem from a stupid one. Thus far there aren't any good solutions that are economically viable at this point in time, and given climate change is not an immediate problem (especially compared to economic downturn,) it is entirely reasonable to have some redundancy. It's not bad to check the facts, it's not bad to posit problems or criticism, correct or otherwise. And it isn't bad to contemplate on a global scale. Shit we aren't even entirely sure what kind of timeline and effects we're looking at here, hence why it doesn't hurt to keep up with peer review and steady advancement.[/QUOTE] How's this for redundancy? [url]http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686[/url] [editline]05:37AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;20101014]Survey question two: what are your credentials[/QUOTE] He's 17, teenagers know everything.