Reply With Quoteoptimus (04-30-2012)
LOLOriginally Posted by Cyclone Ranger
Yes, i'm sure Harvard is just filled with illiterate inner-city youths!
Its interesting to gain some insight into the completely warped sense of reality that is the foundation for some of these views...
M.
optimus (04-30-2012)
Lets not forget that oil companies have been active in surpressing new technologies in alternative energy.
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Abraham Lincoln
Archaix (04-30-2012), Malcolm Wright (04-30-2012), optimus (04-30-2012)
Exactly - they have a track record of buying up the patents and sitting on them so they can continue to enjoy their current product as long as it turns a profit for them. The free market allows this.
M.
First off - other than media hype scaring the shit out of people, there is no threat. Let's put it this way. There may be 100% consensus among Catholics that God exists, but since they refuse to include the opinions of atheists, their conclusions don't really mean anything. The same is true for climate science. There is consensus, but only among those who believe. All others are purposely left out.
Like these scientists for example - http://www.petitionproject.org/
Also, the IPCC report used by the UN was never even peer reviewed. My understanding is that it is full of conjecture and contains false information.
Does this seem like science to you?
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
It's probably had it's share. Look at Obama.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
big steve (04-30-2012)
Yeah, except that just isn't feasible as a means of protest. Fool.
I agree with you, as I said before. Electricity has to come from somewhere, and it's most likely a polluting, carbon-emitting source. However, so long as those power plants aren't burning oil it isn't a question of oil dependency, which is at least something -and we can work on switching to 'cleaner' sources of power eventually.
And of course you don't respect others. You're better than most on the DA right, though.
That's fucking stupid, F&L. I'll tell you why: Catholics aren't any more qualified at determining whether or not there is a god than the rest of us. Climate scientists are more qualified at determining whether or not there is a man-made problem out there than the rest of us, and an overwhelming majority of them, as well as virtually all relevant institutions, say there is.
Then quit your whining.
Please don't knock the IPCC report in the same post as you elevate the Petition Project. Where the IPCC report fails through the inclusion of a minuscule percentage of erroneous conclusions based on non peer-reviewed sources, the Petition Project fails massively in kind.
Yes it does. Science is not perfect. There will be mistakes. Finding a few amongst thousands of insights offered does not invalidate the edifice. I know how very much you wish it did. I know how powerful your wishes are to believe science can just be wished away when it tells you something you don't like to hear. But you've got to learn to rise above them FL.Does this seem like science to you?
M.
Why?
Nonsense. They're a bunch of glorified meteorologists.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
And you need to learn to be more skeptical of sciences claims and predictions, especially when they become politicized and media driven. Consensus among scientists in a relatively new field of study deserves to be ignored. It means very little and thousands of other scientists agree..Yes it does. Science is not perfect. There will be mistakes. Finding a few amongst thousands of insights offered does not invalidate the edifice. I know how very much you wish it did. I know how powerful your wishes are to believe science can just be wished away when it tells you something you don't like to hear. But you've got to learn to rise above them FL.
M.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
...and there we have it: right wing anti-intellectualism at it's finest.
Chachma v'Oz (04-30-2012), optimus (04-30-2012)
... and there we have it: the gullible nature of arrogant liberals on display.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
After 25 years of being badgered by medical science and the federal government about the unhealthful effects of cigarette smoking, I decided that my smoking wasn't a sensible behavior and I quit. That was in 1985. Now the evidence of how destructive it is to both the smoker and everyone around him is overwhelming.
It's been 25 years now that science and governments around the world have been warning us about mankind's adverse effect on global climate. I think it's time that we not only realize that our current behavior isn't sensible, but also take steps to moderate it before the evidence becomes overwhelming that our foot-dragging has doomed us all.
Man has been studying biology and medicine for centuries and, as I'm sure you've noticed, it's warnings and predictions often contradict themselves within a fairly short time span.
Climate science has only been around for a few decades at the most. If biology and medical science can't get their shit together despite hundreds of years of practice, why should anyone take a few decades of climate science seriously?
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
Because it's prudent to do so.
Because these people know more about the climate, predicting future behaviour of the climate, and the effects of human industry on climate than you ever will. You can't argue with their climate models, you can't argue about their predictions, and you can't argue with their credentials. Except you will, because it's not politically convenient for you.
Chachma v'Oz (04-30-2012)
It's a matter of ignoring the facts when they conflict with one's irrational position.
Last edited by Chachma v'Oz; 04-30-2012 at 01:12 PM.
Archaix (04-30-2012)
but F&L, if a company's practices are not responsible and this cause an accident to happen. someone is going to be left with the clean up costs.
someone will always be paying for irresponsible practices whether the tax payer (i.e. the banking collapse) or the end consummer. someone will pay for the irresponsible practices and it tends to work out cheaper to fix these before. the idea of regulation is that the enormous cost of fixing it when it does go wrong doesn't occur.
while regulation means more short term costs, it is cheaper in the long run. sadly the interests of most shareholders is short term gain and with directors, they have short term bonuses (although under corporate governance guidelines, they should look at the long term benefit rather than the short term) so it works out for them to maximise profit in the short term, and then to bail out of the company before it goes wrong.
Last edited by IFF; 04-30-2012 at 01:38 PM.
e. e. cummings is my hero.
An ounce of prevention...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks