Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 78
Thanks Tree55Thanks

Thread: 7 bad science and health ideas that should die with 2016

  1. #21
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,007
    Thanks
    2201

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    Nice cop-out. Were you going to lay some crap an informercial wannabe is proposing? That's what I was dismissing out of hand.

    If you have links to actual studies with controls, hopefully double blind studies, I and even more, Mrs. RNG would love to see them.

    But I don't think such things exist.
    I accept that it might look like that, just realize that over the years it's a shockingly low number of people that even read sources provided, or will find any reason to dismiss anything that opposes their viewpoint.

    So, I typically don't waste time digging up sources that will just be dismissed out of hand.

    The papers that you'd want to look for are the generational studies NOT funded by Monsanto. I could be persuaded to help dig some up, but you'd have to try and convince me that you would find something more substantial to dismiss, like problems with methodology or controls, etc...

    It's nothing personal, I just have little patience to wasting time.

  2. #22
    Master political analyst Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10,304
    Thanks
    4682

    From
    The formerly great golden state
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Except, while I can't speak for others, I dispute MOST of agw, not because "I don't want to believe" in the cult level beliefs, but because the data does not match the hypothesis.
    Oh, I'm pretty sure it's the first reason, but anyway, we've had so many threads on global warming we don't need yet another.
    Thanks from Dangermouse

  3. #23
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,007
    Thanks
    2201

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Oh, I'm pretty sure it's the first reason, but anyway, we've had so many threads on global warming we don't need yet another.
    Sorry, I live in Canada. .. there is nothing but benefits for it to be fact.

    Again, while yes, in isolation co2 is a warming influence, on the global scale, the results do not match the projections of where they would be if the assumptions were correct. So, it would be good science to adjust the models or try to determine where things went wrong, not trying to call anyone trying to point out the growing discrepancy a "climate denier" (which is meant to be akin to holocaust denial, which is criminal in some places, and speaks to the intentions).

    However, you are right, there are many threads on the science portion of agw. There are much fewer discussions about the political "solutions" being pushed, and the implications of implementation of those solutions.

  4. #24
    No mercy for losers Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    45,590
    Thanks
    22274

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Sorry, I live in Canada. .. there is nothing but benefits for it to be fact.

    Again, while yes, in isolation co2 is a warming influence, on the global scale, the results do not match the projections of where they would be if the assumptions were correct. So, it would be good science to adjust the models or try to determine where things went wrong, not trying to call anyone trying to point out the growing discrepancy a "climate denier" (which is meant to be akin to holocaust denial, which is criminal in some places, and speaks to the intentions).

    However, you are right, there are many threads on the science portion of agw. There are much fewer discussions about the political "solutions" being pushed, and the implications of implementation of those solutions.
    https://weather.com/news/climate/new...a-cold-nov2016

    Whether or not this convinces you that climate change is real or not, would it fucking kill you to conserve just the tiniest bit of energy created by fossil fuels just in case you're wrong? No one's asking you to make a dramatic change in your lifestyle, but for the love of God there's actually people who are so convinced climate change is a "hoax" they open the doors and turn on the AC at the same time just to be defiant.

    The development and use of more alternative and renewable energy can only be good for the future of mankind, AGW or not. Why are you so determined to waste shit just because you think it's your right to do so?

    What the fuck is SO horrible about trying to lower our carbon output?
    Thanks from BigLeRoy and Kontrary

  5. #25
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8,112
    Thanks
    4698

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Sorry, I live in Canada. .. there is nothing but benefits for it to be fact.

    Again, while yes, in isolation co2 is a warming influence, on the global scale, the results do not match the projections of where they would be if the assumptions were correct. So, it would be good science to adjust the models or try to determine where things went wrong, not trying to call anyone trying to point out the growing discrepancy a "climate denier" (which is meant to be akin to holocaust denial, which is criminal in some places, and speaks to the intentions).

    However, you are right, there are many threads on the science portion of agw. There are much fewer discussions about the political "solutions" being pushed, and the implications of implementation of those solutions.
    The march of the pine beetle across the mountains into Alberta is beneficial? It's the lack of cold weather through the winter that has caused that.

    And show me any data to disprove the work of climate scientists. Not regurgitations of what some TV bluescreen handwaver turned paid flunky for Exxon interprets real science as saying but real studies.

  6. #26
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8,112
    Thanks
    4698

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    https://weather.com/news/climate/new...a-cold-nov2016

    Whether or not this convinces you that climate change is real or not, would it fucking kill you to conserve just the tiniest bit of energy created by fossil fuels just in case you're wrong? No one's asking you to make a dramatic change in your lifestyle, but for the love of God there's actually people who are so convinced climate change is a "hoax" they open the doors and turn on the AC at the same time just to be defiant.

    The development and use of more alternative and renewable energy can only be good for the future of mankind, AGW or not. Why are you so determined to waste shit just because you think it's your right to do so?

    What the fuck is SO horrible about trying to lower our carbon output?
    Since he lives in Canada, our new carbon tax will make him at least think about it.

    FTR, I am against the carbon tax.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,007
    Thanks
    2201

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    https://weather.com/news/climate/new...a-cold-nov2016

    Whether or not this convinces you that climate change is real or not, would it fucking kill you to conserve just the tiniest bit of energy created by fossil fuels just in case you're wrong? No one's asking you to make a dramatic change in your lifestyle, but for the love of God there's actually people who are so convinced climate change is a "hoax" they open the doors and turn on the AC at the same time just to be defiant.

    The development and use of more alternative and renewable energy can only be good for the future of mankind, AGW or not. Why are you so determined to waste shit just because you think it's your right to do so?

    What the fuck is SO horrible about trying to lower our carbon output?
    Oh, you misunderstand me... Climate change is real, and a constant, the debate is not whether co2 influences climate, it is the degree to which co2 impacts climate that is under debate.

    Next, I am all for increasing efficiencies so that we can use less fuels to accomplish the same or more. I am also for individuals taking the investment in their energy by installing solar panels or other measures to minimize dependence on the grid... But, these systems (with exceptions) are not at the efficiency levels they need to be to begin grid scale conversion.... Soon though, like 10-20 more years of development should get it there.

    The hoax element of climate change is in the solutions, carbon taxes / carbon trading scams that intend to artificially reduce energy consumption of the general population while giving massive profits to the beneficiaries of the scams (al gore is an example and his partner Mr. Blood. )

    I happen to be an electrical engineer, I am greatly encouraged by a lot of the recent technological developments, for example, the recent Nobel for the group that brought LED lights to their theoretical maximum efficiency.

    Trying to lower carbon output is more or less meaningless... Trying to lessen the reliance on fossil fuels, on an individual basis, is great for reducing costs personally. However, the technology required is not where it needs to be for a grid scale change.

  8. #28
    One
    One is offline
    10 Year Survivor One's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,919
    Thanks
    6404

    From
    ----> X <----
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    And kudos to the author for the one on GMOs.
    Now if they would start labeling them, so that people who wish to avoid them can.
    Thanks from Sassy

  9. #29
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,007
    Thanks
    2201

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    The march of the pine beetle across the mountains into Alberta is beneficial? It's the lack of cold weather through the winter that has caused that.

    And show me any data to disprove the work of climate scientists. Not regurgitations of what some TV bluescreen handwaver turned paid flunky for Exxon interprets real science as saying but real studies.
    The best way to disprove the climate science are the climate science papers... It seems that field doesn't seem to grasp the distinction between the aspects of their field that are objectively proven versus the elements of the science which remain speculative.

    It's frequent theme of climate papers to treat both elements equally and with the same merits.

    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    Since he lives in Canada, our new carbon tax will make him at least think about it.

    FTR, I am against the carbon tax.
    God damn, I know... Get to pay more for energy on the promise that the funds will make it to research or on the promise to plant a tree in some third world country, if precedence hold, evicting the people living on that land or killing them if they refuse.

  10. #30
    No mercy for losers Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    45,590
    Thanks
    22274

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Oh, you misunderstand me... Climate change is real, and a constant, the debate is not whether co2 influences climate, it is the degree to which co2 impacts climate that is under debate.

    Next, I am all for increasing efficiencies so that we can use less fuels to accomplish the same or more. I am also for individuals taking the investment in their energy by installing solar panels or other measures to minimize dependence on the grid... But, these systems (with exceptions) are not at the efficiency levels they need to be to begin grid scale conversion.... Soon though, like 10-20 more years of development should get it there.

    The hoax element of climate change is in the solutions, carbon taxes / carbon trading scams that intend to artificially reduce energy consumption of the general population while giving massive profits to the beneficiaries of the scams (al gore is an example and his partner Mr. Blood. )

    I happen to be an electrical engineer, I am greatly encouraged by a lot of the recent technological developments, for example, the recent Nobel for the group that brought LED lights to their theoretical maximum efficiency.

    Trying to lower carbon output is more or less meaningless... Trying to lessen the reliance on fossil fuels, on an individual basis, is great for reducing costs personally. However, the technology required is not where it needs to be for a grid scale change.
    I haven't heard anyone talking about changing the grid anytime soon. Why is there such hysteria over doing good things regardless of the reason?

    As to the carbon trading, I agree to some extent, but it's worked well (or so I've read) on a smaller scale with other kinds of emissions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 291
    Last Post: 29th June 2016, 09:48 PM
  2. Replies: 92
    Last Post: 6th July 2015, 10:26 AM
  3. Another anti-science Republican on the House science committee..
    By teamosil in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 8th October 2012, 03:48 AM
  4. Obama backs 4 GOP health care ideas
    By Winn in forum Healthcare
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 8th March 2010, 11:46 AM
  5. Global Warming Science isn't Science
    By conservative in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2nd December 2007, 01:50 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed