Interesting vids indeed. But there's money to be made so let's drop this sensible nonsense shall we
Aio ki te Aorangi
Interesting vids indeed. But there's money to be made so let's drop this sensible nonsense shall we
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
dodgy is as dodgy does
Well that was a waste of time. More inane twaddle by yet another enthusiastic (but patriotic) amateur jumping on the denialist bandwagon and preaching to a supportive and enthusiastic audience of poorly informed idiots.Originally Posted by Swoop
Reminded me a lot of a church service.
Don't blame me, I voted Green.
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
Yes, very similar, in fact. Money being extorted from those stupid enough to believe in "it" ... "Global warming" or "god".
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
dodgy is as dodgy does
One key difference: there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Don't blame me, I voted Green.
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
Likewise for "global warming". Just lots of heavily manipulated figures, displayed in a manner that alludes towards something that can be heavily taxed and make a few people very rich.
Religion only has to come up with some nice fairy tales and sell them in a way that attracts people. Basically an "opt-in" scenario.
Global Taxing is far worse, as this is forced upon a populace without their individual consents'.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Come warm yourself by the fire
Actually there is evidence of global warming, as well as global cooling.
In fact there are records millions of years old in ice-shelf's.
However similar to the debate about god. Since global warming has NATURALLY occurred in the past - is it a bad thing?
or just something that happens?
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
dodgy is as dodgy does
I hate the idea of man made climate change, and the impacts on my lifestyle are going to really suck - hell, they're already starting to surface, so I'm going to take a leaf out of your book and stop looking for ways to work around it and manage it and pretend it's either not happening or something I can't do anything about. I'm suddenly really grateful for the energy interests and religious right who have sponsored the blogs out there for showing me that the thousands of scientists are wrong, and that it's all part of a master plan by the evil greens (led by Al Gore and Nandor Tancoz) to crush the delicate flower of western capitalism.
Sometimes closing one's eyes and pretending there isn't a problem is the best solution because taking personal responsibility for one's actions and outcomes really sucks.
Don't blame me, I voted Green.
Come warm yourself by the fire
Shrub don't get me wrong. I do think we are killing the planet.
I just think calling it "climate change" is like saying Micheal Jackson was bad because he was a Pedo.
Fact was that Micheal was ugly, he lived a fucked up life, and his music was getting worse.
Likewise, we are over-consuming, overpopulating, polluting and completely fucking up the planet. This will take probably a million years to been seen. Which isn't a bad figure - but when you consider the fact that we can kill in a million years what has existed for 100's million years....we have a bad track record.
We will run out of resources, we will remove the protective layers from the sky, we will pollute the air, we will make the water undrinkable, we will kill off all life......
All of this will happen without changing a single degree in temperature.
To call all problems of mankind "climate change" or "Emission issues" is like putting a band-aid on a broken arm.
Fact of the matter is we will fuck everything else up well before we realize that we were concentrating on the wrong thing.
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
dodgy is as dodgy does
Unfortunately it won't take a million years. Studies I have read show that we're currently using the resources the planet has at a rate of between 120% and 160% pa - in other words we're using them faster than they can regenerate, and those resources include the ability of the atmosphere to act as a sink. The population has doubled in my lifetime, and will double again before I shuffle off this mortal coil and even the most conservative of commentators reckon we'll see massive problems as a result of this within 30 years.
The big problem is energy. For the last 150 years or so we have been using stored energy as fast as we possibly can. That energy is essentially the sunlight of millions of years stored in oil and carbon, and is as cheap as chips. We run our cars, bikes, factories, farms and houses on it. We use it to make our clothes, our fertilisers and even our food, and we're dumping waste into the environment as fast as we possibly can.
There are a lot of people that have come to depend on that continued and growing use of energy for an opulent lifestyle, and when people say "we can't carry on like this, we need to pull our heads in and think of the future" it worries them because they aren't fussed about a future they won't see - when you're in your 50s and 60s the state of the world in 30 years is irrelevant. What is relevant is your share prices and your executive bonus, and these bloody interfering scientists with their bad news are not good for those lovely things, so they have engaged in one of the most effective and well funded PR campaigns in history to debunk climate change. Despite having little or no scientific evidence to support their position they have managed to cast major doubts on the life work of thousands of highly skilled and expert men and women by using classic PR strategies.
As a PR and marketing person it's been fascinating to watch, but as someone who loves his world it's bloody scary.
Don't blame me, I voted Green.
Come warm yourself by the fire
No offense, but can't the same be applied for a scientist, in their 50's or 60's - trying to publish their final white papers.
The ones they have been working on for the last 20 years.
I mean changing figures won't affect anyone. And if the paper is published your famous.
Both sides have to save face regardless of the outcome. As you said this is Marketing 101
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
dodgy is as dodgy does
Not quite. There are a number of factors at play here, and most scientists are more interested in being proved correct than almost anything in the universe, and being proven wrong is about as bad as you can get. I guess for a scientist discovering new knowledge is like making a brazillian dollars, and being proven wrong is like going bankrupt.
And you're right, getting published is the goal, especially in an A list journal, but having your work rejected is to be avoided at all costs, and work gets rejected when the claims being made lack validity and reliability, which means if there is ANY doubt in your claims you don't make them because you're guaranteed some smart bastard will slam you at the peer review stage.
The other thing to remember is that a lot of scientific research is being conducted by bright young things making a name for themselves, so while a lot of scientists are older, even more are younger.
I know quite a few scientists, including a few who work in the climate change field, and every one of them would crawl over broken glass and sell their soul to the devil to be the one who makes the discovery that the current climate change isn't predominantly man made. It would be a discovery on a par with splitting the atom because it would completely rewrite the rule book.
Don't blame me, I voted Green.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks