Scientific Fraud

[TitoFan]

Let's forget about Al Gore for the sake of this argument.
I'm not defending him... and I along with the rest of the universe don't think much about him.

Let's talk about the climate. You're absolutely right. Climate ISN'T static. No one is claiming that it should be. However, numbers such as average temperatures are not some obscure measurement, conjured up by some mad scientist working in the basement of his home. It's a pretty straightforward measurement. And as with ALL measurements, it depends greatly on how it's taken, as well as a myriad of other factors. If the average Earth temperature has been rising over the last several years.... I don't think it's cause for us to run screaming into the streets that the world is coming to an end. I think it's just a situation that merits further analysis and observation. But that's just my nature. I tend to be more paused and analytical than others. I'm not advocating mass panic. But on the other hand.... this annoying dismissal of scientific studies like they're some voodoo conspiracy against mankind is just that...... ANNOYING. Thereby my argument about extremes again. Why the insistence that all these studies and numbers are just crap? Do you rail against all other sciences in the same way? I certainly hope not.

Well sorry, Al Gore is one of the many people who has taken the flag of Anthropogenic Climate Change and used it to line his pockets, but that's not all he along with others are calling for the SILENCING of opposition (examples: Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to 'Punish Climate-Change Deniers' and 'Put a Price on Carbon' - EcoWatch, Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics - Washington Times, AG Lynch: DOJ Has Discussed Whether to Pursue Civil Action Against Climate Change Deniers, Bill Nye open to criminal charges, jail time for climate-change dissenters - Washington Times ) I'm sorry, but to me that doesn't look like science, that looks like coercion.....but alright let's take Gore out of the mix.


I'm not against people studying the effects of human activity on the environment, quite the opposite. I'm an outdoorsman, I love being in nature, I love hunting, I love fishing. But there comes a point where I feel like people are being railroaded into this groupthink....Humans MUST be causing the climate to change....and that's not seen as an opinion, it's seen as scientific fact and when scientists and law makers are saying "We're going to punish non-believers" then my bullshit alarm goes off....Why? Why punish "non-believers"? It seems more of a fundamentalist religious approach than a scientific approach does it not? Plato did not call for people who believed the Sun rotated around the Earth to be punished, he was punished for thinking the Earth rotated around the Sun.

Slow and steady wins the race, people jumping to "Day After Tomorrow" type conclusions, Doomsday predictions.....it's laughable. People talking about huge hurricanes that are going to destroy us all...I live in Hurricane Alley, I've seen fuck all hurricanes for YEARS and in some summers we've NEEDED hurricanes or at the very least tropical depressions to help out our water situation during the summer and early fall. I've seen very few tornadoes in the past few years as well....I mean I don't mind NOT seeing or being impacted by deadly weather, but to be tormented with the Hellfire and Brimstone-like predictions of the Climate Change Alarmists, I'm tired of it, it's the boy who cried wolf......not every snowstorm is a sign that the world will end, not every drop of rain is a man made tragedy, too much, too much and for far too long and I'm sorry now that I've lived the majority of my adult life with these preachers of doom and destruction without ANYTHING happening that could be nailed down as "man made" I'm done with them as scientists.

Look at anything they suggest as options....electric cars for example! Electric cars make 0 sense!!!! "Well you don't use gas in an electric car"......no, you don't, you use COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS! But electric cars are supposed to decrease the carbon footprint?!?!?! Windmills produce minimal energy AND kill scores of birds....better for the environment? Solar Power uses hazardous materials to make the panels, the panels take up great amounts of land and for what amount of energy? If someone was TRULY concerned with the environment then Nuclear would be the cry! Nuclear power now! Most efficient and produces less waste than any other form of energy.....yet Nuclear | Greenpeace International ....so what is the REAL crux of their argument?

They want a return to an agrarian society with socialism as their economic system....that is what you get when you piece the puzzle together and with that I will tell you MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE....ergo I'm not buying into it.

As with the other issues, it's the extremists that do the most damage and drive away people who would otherwise be more open to an opposing viewpoint (such as yourself). "Coercion", "non-believers"...... it's all unfortunate nonsense that fanatics indulge in. Punishing people for believing in "X" or "Y"?? Society's REALLY f*cked up. So basically I don't believe in this type of tactic any more than you do.

Let's talk about hurricanes. I live in a hurricane prone area myself, and haven't experienced one since Georges in 1998. But we can't go by how many hurricanes we've personally experienced, but rather look at the frequency of hurricanes period. Hurricane activity tends to be cyclic, but even with that, it's worth looking at any trends within that cyclic activity. You could have cyclic activity that still trends upwards, if looked at statistically. At some point I'll look it up and see for myself whether there is a discernible trend.

Now onto to your other point: energy.

I'm not a fan of electric cars myself. But what's wrong with solar panels? It's basically free energy, there for the taking. Otherwise wasted as it falls on unused land. Why not put some of that land to use with solar panels? The technology has evolved over the years, bringing down the cost..... and I'm sure they'll become more and more practical as time goes on. Wind generators..... meh..... I've got mixed feeling on those. Enormous structures with a significant failure history, and probably not enough bang for the buck. That technology can definitely stand being improved. You mentioned nuclear? Bring it on! You see..... I'm not anti-anything, unless there's a very good reason for it. I think everything should be on the table for discussion.

I'll beat the dead horse here. Objectivity. Not extremism for the sake of being difficult.

[El Kabong]

As with the other issues, it's the extremists that do the most damage and drive away people who would otherwise be more open to an opposing viewpoint (such as yourself). "Coercion", "non-believers"...... it's all unfortunate nonsense that fanatics indulge in. Punishing people for believing in "X" or "Y"?? Society's REALLY f*cked up. So basically I don't believe in this type of tactic any more than you do.

Let's talk about hurricanes. I live in a hurricane prone area myself, and haven't experienced one since Georges in 1998. But we can't go by how many hurricanes we've personally experienced, but rather look at the frequency of hurricanes period. Hurricane activity tends to be cyclic, but even with that, it's worth looking at any trends within that cyclic activity. You could have cyclic activity that still trends upwards, if looked at statistically. At some point I'll look it up and see for myself whether there is a discernible trend.

Now onto to your other point: energy.

I'm not a fan of electric cars myself. But what's wrong with solar panels? It's basically free energy, there for the taking. Otherwise wasted as it falls on unused land. Why not put some of that land to use with solar panels? The technology has evolved over the years, bringing down the cost..... and I'm sure they'll become more and more practical as time goes on. Wind generators..... meh..... I've got mixed feeling on those. Enormous structures with a significant failure history, and probably not enough bang for the buck. That technology can definitely stand being improved. You mentioned nuclear? Bring it on! You see..... I'm not anti-anything, unless there's a very good reason for it. I think everything should be on the table for discussion.

I'll beat the dead horse here. Objectivity. Not extremism for the sake of being difficult.

I am quite pleased to read your first paragraph here and glad that we can agree on those things.



Hurricanes are tricky and the hubris shown by some in regards to them is laughable (example New Climate Models Predict Hurricane Seasons Years in Advance | Popular Science ). That article actually has links to people who wish to slow or stop Hurricanes and Typhoons altogether....although I live in an area much like you, where Hurricanes nail us like clockwork (typically) there's no way I want for MAN to slow or stop those storms! Hurricanes, although very costly and destructive are a natural occurrence and absolutely VITAL to life in your country as well as where I live. Those storms clean out wetlands, those storms provide much needed water, those storms PROBABLY do a great deal to help aquatic life as well and the ONLY reason for rising costs of hurricanes and lives lost (at least in America) is people have moved to the beach in record numbers and before the "Modern Age" the beach was for vacationing and there were not multi-million dollar structures built there. In regards to predicting the frequency of Hurricanes, maybe that can be done, but predicting landfall is something altogether different and THAT is the important thing as lives, commerce, and infrastructure are at stake.


Energy....Windmills kill scores of birds there's no way around it. They produce little to nothing in regards to energy but they sure kill the fuck out of some birds and bats US windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought | Save the Eagles International.....I love wildlife, I do not wish to see it needlessly destroyed because it makes some crunchy hippy "feel good" about their God damned carbon footprint.

For solar...I'm fine with using solar on the roofs of houses, I'm fine with small amounts of it, but giant "Solar Farms" are not good, they use up a lot of square footage, they make the land unusable for wildlife, and they also cook birds....This Solar Plant Has Been Burning Some Birds To Death. Solar would be a fine way of SUPPLEMENTING energy, but running entire communities off of it? It's ridiculous, costly, ineffective, and has tragic results for nearby wildlife both where the panels are AND where they are made (lots of toxic chemicals in that process).

So for both windmills and solar I'm asking myself....DDT was deemed barbaric for what it supposedly did to bird eggs, albeit while the product in question was saving countless lives from malaria (and could be improving lives by doing away with Zika right now), but the birds needed to be protected and so that invention although bloody brilliant as it was had to be tossed onto the scrap pile of history because birds are important.....so why are wind energy and solar energy still a thing if DDT is no longer allowed to be used? Are those processes not killing enough birds or is the environmental impact more important than the birds? I just don't get it....why is LIFE SAVING (especially in 3rd world countries) DDT reviled and wind and solar energy lifted up as some saving grace? It, like much of the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmism makes little to no sense at all.



Titofan, I must say, I'm quite happy with your post, very pleased in your thoughtful and measured response. I know I can be heated over many issues and sometimes I just need to vent my frustration, but these last few posts have shown that there is indeed space for discussion and debate here at Saddos and I am very thankful that we were able to share in this debate however small and insignificant it may be viewed on the boxing forum.

[El Kabong]

http://iceagenow.info/tax-meat-until...port-suggests/


“The evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment,” agrees Rachel Premack, a columnist for The Washington Post’s Wonkblog.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-seven-charts/

[TitoFan]

As with the other issues, it's the extremists that do the most damage and drive away people who would otherwise be more open to an opposing viewpoint (such as yourself). "Coercion", "non-believers"...... it's all unfortunate nonsense that fanatics indulge in. Punishing people for believing in "X" or "Y"?? Society's REALLY f*cked up. So basically I don't believe in this type of tactic any more than you do.

Let's talk about hurricanes. I live in a hurricane prone area myself, and haven't experienced one since Georges in 1998. But we can't go by how many hurricanes we've personally experienced, but rather look at the frequency of hurricanes period. Hurricane activity tends to be cyclic, but even with that, it's worth looking at any trends within that cyclic activity. You could have cyclic activity that still trends upwards, if looked at statistically. At some point I'll look it up and see for myself whether there is a discernible trend.

Now onto to your other point: energy.

I'm not a fan of electric cars myself. But what's wrong with solar panels? It's basically free energy, there for the taking. Otherwise wasted as it falls on unused land. Why not put some of that land to use with solar panels? The technology has evolved over the years, bringing down the cost..... and I'm sure they'll become more and more practical as time goes on. Wind generators..... meh..... I've got mixed feeling on those. Enormous structures with a significant failure history, and probably not enough bang for the buck. That technology can definitely stand being improved. You mentioned nuclear? Bring it on! You see..... I'm not anti-anything, unless there's a very good reason for it. I think everything should be on the table for discussion.

I'll beat the dead horse here. Objectivity. Not extremism for the sake of being difficult.

I am quite pleased to read your first paragraph here and glad that we can agree on those things.



Hurricanes are tricky and the hubris shown by some in regards to them is laughable (example New Climate Models Predict Hurricane Seasons Years in Advance | Popular Science ). That article actually has links to people who wish to slow or stop Hurricanes and Typhoons altogether....although I live in an area much like you, where Hurricanes nail us like clockwork (typically) there's no way I want for MAN to slow or stop those storms! Hurricanes, although very costly and destructive are a natural occurrence and absolutely VITAL to life in your country as well as where I live. Those storms clean out wetlands, those storms provide much needed water, those storms PROBABLY do a great deal to help aquatic life as well and the ONLY reason for rising costs of hurricanes and lives lost (at least in America) is people have moved to the beach in record numbers and before the "Modern Age" the beach was for vacationing and there were not multi-million dollar structures built there. In regards to predicting the frequency of Hurricanes, maybe that can be done, but predicting landfall is something altogether different and THAT is the important thing as lives, commerce, and infrastructure are at stake.


Energy....Windmills kill scores of birds there's no way around it. They produce little to nothing in regards to energy but they sure kill the fuck out of some birds and bats US windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought | Save the Eagles International.....I love wildlife, I do not wish to see it needlessly destroyed because it makes some crunchy hippy "feel good" about their God damned carbon footprint.

For solar...I'm fine with using solar on the roofs of houses, I'm fine with small amounts of it, but giant "Solar Farms" are not good, they use up a lot of square footage, they make the land unusable for wildlife, and they also cook birds....This Solar Plant Has Been Burning Some Birds To Death. Solar would be a fine way of SUPPLEMENTING energy, but running entire communities off of it? It's ridiculous, costly, ineffective, and has tragic results for nearby wildlife both where the panels are AND where they are made (lots of toxic chemicals in that process).

So for both windmills and solar I'm asking myself....DDT was deemed barbaric for what it supposedly did to bird eggs, albeit while the product in question was saving countless lives from malaria (and could be improving lives by doing away with Zika right now), but the birds needed to be protected and so that invention although bloody brilliant as it was had to be tossed onto the scrap pile of history because birds are important.....so why are wind energy and solar energy still a thing if DDT is no longer allowed to be used? Are those processes not killing enough birds or is the environmental impact more important than the birds? I just don't get it....why is LIFE SAVING (especially in 3rd world countries) DDT reviled and wind and solar energy lifted up as some saving grace? It, like much of the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmism makes little to no sense at all.



Titofan, I must say, I'm quite happy with your post, very pleased in your thoughtful and measured response. I know I can be heated over many issues and sometimes I just need to vent my frustration, but these last few posts have shown that there is indeed space for discussion and debate here at Saddos and I am very thankful that we were able to share in this debate however small and insignificant it may be viewed on the boxing forum.

I think we would both be surprised at just how much we probably agree on a great many topics, when you get down to it. I'd venture to say if we were discussing these in person over a beer.... we might not resolve the world's problems, but we could probably teach politicians a thing or two about debating issues rationally and logically.

Energy is near and dear to my heart, given my technological leanings. I'll again agree with you on wind turbines, not so much because of the birds (hope that didn't sound heartless).... but I just don't see the benefit outweighing the burden of these large, ghastly things that sometimes break down catastrophically. To some they might look beautiful... but in reality they can be more of a nuisance, taking up precious air space. Never mind birds. Just think what would happen should some kind of aircraft were to invade their space. On solar, it's got to be judiciously used. Granted, taking up acres and acres of usable land to install solar panels might not be the best answer in some cases. And yet, I'm sure there is a lot of uninhabited, desert land that could be put to use in that way. As technology advances, I'm sure solar panels will become cheaper, more efficient, and probably more friendly to the environment. Why not? There are a lot of other energy technologies out there as well. You mentioned nuclear. Mankind's fears aside, I think nuclear is a great alternative. We just need to make sure all the T's are crossed and I's are dotted when it comes to safety. No expense spared, and no shortcuts allowed. But nuclear is highly efficient, and non-polluting. Waste incineration is a pretty good technology as well, which basically shoots two birds with one stone. We generate energy and we get rid or our waste without the need for landfills.

But back to the original point, I think you're slowly getting to know how I really feel about certain topics. I consider myself pretty objective on most of them. And... I think in many instances the real solution lies somewhere in the middle of the extremes. But people get too emotional about issues, and tend to gravitate toward one extreme or the other, which further polarizes the issue and makes finding solutions even more difficult.

[El Kabong]

Will We Reach 4,000 Days Since a Major Hurricane Strike? � Roy Spencer, PhD

Kind of an impressive feat given the certainty with which Al Gore spoke

[walrus]

@TitoFan @El Kabong . I don't like the friendly tone in your exchanges

[El Kabong]

@<a href="http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingforum/member.php?u=3829" target="_blank">TitoFan</a> @<a href="http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingforum/member.php?u=50" target="_blank">El Kabong</a> . I don't like the friendly tone in your exchanges

Eat shit

[TitoFan]

@<a href="http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingforum/member.php?u=3829" target="_blank">TitoFan</a> @<a href="http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingforum/member.php?u=50" target="_blank">El Kabong</a> . I don't like the friendly tone in your exchanges

Eat shit

Twice.

[El Kabong]

Serial arsonist behind California wildfires caught as Gore blames ‘global warming’ | Climate Depot

So I guess the heat got to the arsonist and made him crazy so that he had to go set fires....no word yet if Al Gore will be the defense lawyer for serial arsonist Anthony Pashilk or if he will try the "global warming made me do it" defense

[El Kabong]

Leonardo DiCaprio, the Malaysian Money Scandal and His "Unusual" Foundation | Hollywood Reporter


Key points
Guests at Environment Gala Flown in on Helicopter
Each Served Whole Fish -- After Watching Film on Overfishing!


Global Warming and Socialism for Thee but not for Me sayeth the Di Caprio




Leo's a heck of an actor but for fucks sake get off the soap box and just stick to playing pretend....people need to understand that actors ain't necessarily the best and brightest, Leo has GED, he didn't go to college, he doesn't have some innate skill for business, he's good at acting meaning that he probably has a personality disorder or two...but let's stop (as a society, nobody on here in particular) acting like his thoughts on Anthropogenic Global Warming are profound....he's a giant hypocrite "Hey come to my 'Save the environment party'! It's on my private island.", "That's great Leo, but how do I get there?", "Oh I'll just send my private helicopter, it's picking up and dropping off all of the hundreds of guests"

[TitoFan]

Serial arsonist behind California wildfires caught as Gore blames ‘global warming’ | Climate Depot

So I guess the heat got to the arsonist and made him crazy so that he had to go set fires....no word yet if Al Gore will be the defense lawyer for serial arsonist Anthony Pashilk or if he will try the "global warming made me do it" defense

That clown is still around??
I would've thought he would've folded his tent by now and moved on to more fruitful endeavors.

[El Kabong]

Serial arsonist behind California wildfires caught as Gore blames ‘global warming’ | Climate Depot

So I guess the heat got to the arsonist and made him crazy so that he had to go set fires....no word yet if Al Gore will be the defense lawyer for serial arsonist Anthony Pashilk or if he will try the "global warming made me do it" defense

That clown is still around??
I would've thought he would've folded his tent by now and moved on to more fruitful endeavors.

Oh yeah and his endeavors are VERY fruitful.....it's the reason for his beliefs man, that is what I'm telling you

[El Kabong]

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change? : NPR


SCIENCE!

[Gandalf]

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change? : NPR


SCIENCE!

I think he has a point. The global population will expand by a billion more in another 9 years and our economic and social systems are at 'melting point' as it is. Leaving aside climate change, you have to factor in the scarcity of resources and how our neo liberal economic systems are creating more and more inequality. So, of those billion children who will have the children? I would hazard a guess and say it is mostly people of lower intelligence with less resources and into a world of growing inequality and fewer and fewer opportunities. Then you have to factor in technology and the loss of manufacturing, service and driving jobs to robots. There are not going to be many jobs available.

Unless we can radically transform how we organise our societies, then people should be having fewer children and in the West we are already seeing the consequences of saddling young people with an incredibly deranged and unjust system. They are simply not having sex and birth rates are dropping exponentially. In a world of progress and opportunity, people should and will have children, but in a system of central banks and war you end up with panda in a cage syndrome and people just want out. Who would want to perpetuate this system onto others? How cruel could one be? Man has shown no desire to evolve or adapt and the price will be felt long before we die. The pain should logically end with us.

This is a topic that I have thought about a lot over the years and I think the people quoted in the article have a point. I think to focus on climate change is limited as it is only one factor among several others. Humanity will not progress unless we change the financial system, the war machine and also start to respect our planet.

Did you know that more than 60% of all food is thrown away. That right there is an example of how our system just does not work. We have potential, but we literally throw it away.

[Gandalf]

When it comes to heat, it has been the hottest summer since 1994. August is supposed to average out at 29'C for the maximum daily temperature, but it has been 33-35'C EVERY DAY this month and not a single day of rain. It is pretty exceptional. Not a degree or two above average, but about 5'C above. Now maybe it is a natural cycle, but it is far from normal. Is it any wonder I am currently so against ties?