I haven't seen anyone here argue one way or another that it's not.
Watching your Pavlovian reactions to a simply stated fact is pretty damn entertaining.
You create a previously unmentioned strawman and then argue against it.
This tends to give credibility to those who state "Liberalism is a mental disorder".
You generally take their side anyway, so what possible difference does it make?
You start tossing around another current moronic wingnut bumper sticker slogan about "Gun Free Zones" and you pretend you're not carrying their water for them.
Sure you're not.
Tell me some more about how global climate change is a hoax, Unca Reagan.
It's good to fight for a losing cause sometimes.
Sometimes it is smarter to save your battles for those that are winnable.
The Republican party and many conservatives have come to the conclusion that they have lost the same sex marriage battle. They are cutting their loses and concentrating on other issues.
The issue of gun control, like campaign finance, is lost. At least on the national level.
I haven't seen anyone here argue one way or another that it's not.
Watching your Pavlovian reactions to a simply stated fact is pretty damn entertaining.
You create a previously unmentioned strawman and then argue against it.
This tends to give credibility to those who state "Liberalism is a mental disorder".
You generally take their side anyway, so what possible difference does it make?
You start tossing around another current moronic wingnut bumper sticker slogan about "Gun Free Zones" and you pretend you're not carrying their water for them.
Sure you're not.
Tell me some more about how global climate change is a hoax, Unca Reagan.
I don't carry anyone's water.
According to the "Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence" Bill Clinton passed the GFZSA in 1994 as a response to increasing levels of gun violence in schools. As you stated, this is a sensible policy, but for some reason you just don't like the name of it. The same basic policies are in place on all Military bases in the U.S. The only thing you object to is using the term "Gun Free Zone", the very term used by Clinton when he passed the law?
When there is no valid argument, you argue semantics.....no surprise there.
As far as Climate Change...it is undeniable and has been taking place as long as this planet has existed. It has caused at least seven Ice Ages and the subsequent melting that followed......and humans will not be able to prevent #8 regardless of how big our egos are.
What is complete and utter bullshit is the Al Gore Global Warming narrative that has just happened to put millions of dollars in his pocket.
I once heard a part of an Al Gore speech about how urgent it was to take action if we would want to make sure that "humans will inhabit this earth forever" and I immediately felt a deep and unsettling chill. What a truly horrific vision this would be: Our garbage species fucking up shit with no end. What kind of a person do you have to be to think this was a good thing?
Luckily the inevitable reality is very much different. If there'd be a god I'd thank him for that.
I once heard a part of an Al Gore speech about how urgent it was to take action if we would want to make sure that "humans will inhabit this earth forever" and I immediately felt a deep and unsettling chill. What a truly horrific vision this would be: Our garbage species fucking up shit with no end. What kind of a person do you have to be to think this was a good thing?
Luckily the inevitable reality is very much different. If there'd be a god I'd thank him for that.
I once heard a part of an Al Gore speech about how urgent it was to take action if we would want to make sure that "humans will inhabit this earth forever" and I immediately felt a deep and unsettling chill. What a truly horrific vision this would be: Our garbage species fucking up shit with no end. What kind of a person do you have to be to think this was a good thing?
Luckily the inevitable reality is very much different. If there'd be a god I'd thank him for that.
hahaa. well said, frank. peace of mind comes from knowing we wont be here too much longer.
unfortunately, we'll drag a shit ton of other species down with us
I once heard a part of an Al Gore speech about how urgent it was to take action if we would want to make sure that "humans will inhabit this earth forever" and I immediately felt a deep and unsettling chill. What a truly horrific vision this would be: Our garbage species fucking up shit with no end. What kind of a person do you have to be to think this was a good thing?
Luckily the inevitable reality is very much different. If there'd be a god I'd thank him for that.
hahaa. well said, frank. peace of mind comes from knowing we wont be here too much longer.
unfortunately, we'll drag a shit ton of other species down with us
Yea, but more species will adapt and evolve to replace them. Humans may not be so lucky. I would assume humans will adapt in some manner as well, there just won't be as many of us. Which will be all the better most likely. No doubt we are screwing up the planet with pollution but as George Carlin said "the Earth will be fine". It may not be the same but, the Earth has always gone through major climate changes even before human were screwing stuff up. Species were going extent before we caused it. Hell, there was a time when flowers weren't even a thing if you can imagine that. Doesn't mean we shouldn't change for our own our well being but if we don't the Earth will just shrug us off like a tick.
We are less than nothing in the grand scheme of things.
But we do have a major impact on the earth and it's environment.
But that is not a reason to change our ways. Fuck other species.
We need to change our ways so that the next generation of meaningless people can live as well as we did.
The entire global warming discussion is intellectually dishonest and total bullshit any way you look at it. I mean to think that the degree of pollution we caused since the beginning of industrialization did not cause any severe effects on the chemical composition and function of our atmosphere would be laughable but what's there to debate or to change? Whatever fossil fuels there are that can possibly be exploited will be exploited. There's absolutely no doubt about it. Shit will get exploited and shit will get the fuck burned. So let's get it on and burn as much as we can as fast as we can cause if we (I'm talking about us so very advanced and developed Western motherfuckers) don't burn shit someone else will and they'll burn it in a much worse and more ecologically harmful way as us. And that was the end of that Al, now go and find some other schtick to help you seem relevant.
The entire global warming discussion is intellectually dishonest and total bullshit any way you look at it. I mean to think that the degree of pollution we caused since the beginning of industrialization did not cause any severe effects on the chemical composition and function of our atmosphere would be laughable but what's there to debate or to change? Whatever fossil fuels there are that can possibly be exploited will be exploited. There's absolutely no doubt about it. Shit will get exploited and shit will get the fuck burned. So let's get it on and burn as much as we can as fast as we can cause if we (I'm talking about us so very advanced and developed Western motherfuckers) don't burn shit someone else will and they'll burn it in a much worse and more ecologically harmful way as us. And that was the end of that Al, now go and find some other schtick to help you seem relevant.
Al exploits human guilt and puts cash in his pocket.......to me that's worse than the detriments of Industrialization.
Al exploits human guilt and puts cash in his pocket.......to me that's worse than the detriments of Industrialization.
I don't know... the "exploitation of human guilt" is probably as old as prostitution and both are concepts that are ingrained in all of our societies. I mean what would the Catholic church be without the exploitation of human guilt? It's basically their entire concept condensed into just 4 words.
Here, I did it! Gun control, climatic change and now -religion. We've come full circle once again...
Long live the wonderful world of Soulstrut!
Al exploits human guilt and puts cash in his pocket.......to me that's worse than the detriments of Industrialization.
I don't know... the "exploitation of human guilt" is probably as old as prostitution and both are concepts that are ingrained in all of our societies. I mean what would the Catholic church be without the exploitation of human guilt? It's basically their entire concept condensed into just 4 words.
Here, I did it! Gun control, climatic change and now -religion. We've come full circle once again...
Long live the wonderful world of Soulstrut!
No one can elect the Catholic Church and force me to abide by it.
Al exploits human guilt and puts cash in his pocket.......to me that's worse than the detriments of Industrialization.
Al's "guilt exploitation" and "pocket stuffing" isn't melting the ice caps. It's also not causing species to become extinct due to destruction of their local ecosystem. It's not making people sick due to polluted water, like in WV and NC. It's also not causing a giant smog cloud over Beijing. It's not causing hurricanes and the like to be more powerful and destructive. like Katrina and Sandy.
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAAÔÇÖs US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ÔÇ£adjustingÔÇØ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ÔÇ£fabricatedÔÇØ by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAAÔÇÖs US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ÔÇ£adjustingÔÇØ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ÔÇ£fabricatedÔÇØ by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.
Your (and the author's) first mistake is thinking that what is happening in the US, with respect to climate change is happening in the rest of the world. It isn't. It's like thinking that because the sun is down in Texas, the sky is dark and the wind is blowing, it must be that way for the entire world. It reminds me of the crackpot argument that climate change deniers make when they scream, "It's SNOWING!!! How can the Earth be warming?" Or in Goddards case, " It's cooler in the US than ever, so climate change can't be real".
Your next mistake is relying on a blog written by an Obama "birther" named Steven Goddard, ne Tony Heller.
Your last mistake is the one you have been making continually: Forgetting about "peer-review" of scientific claims. Here's a rebuttal on Goddard/ Heller's claim, that took all of 40 seconds to find on the intranets.
"Goddard made two major errors in his analysis, which produced results showing a large bias due to infilling that doesnÔÇÖt really exist. First, he is simply averaging absolute temperatures rather than using anomalies. Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time. If the composition does change, you will often find that stations dropping out will result in climatological biases in the network due to differences in elevation and average temperatures that donÔÇÖt necessarily reflect any real information on month-to-month or year-to-year variability. Lucia covered this well a few years back with a toy model, so IÔÇÖd suggest people who are still confused about the subject to consult her spherical cow.
His second error is to not use any form of spatial weighting (e.g. gridding) when combining station records. While the USHCN network is fairly well distributed across the U.S., its not perfectly so, and some areas of the country have considerably more stations than others. Not gridding also can exacerbate the effect of station drop-out when the stations that drop out are not randomly distributed."
"Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic and guest author at the climate change skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). The name ÔÇ£Steven GoddardÔÇØ is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller, according to the Heartland Institute. [2]
Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [3], [4]"
Oops.
Hitching one's wagon to this guy is not a good idea.
"August 15, 2008
Steven Goddard Published an article titled Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered in The Register. Goddard claimed that the National Snow and Ice Data Center plot of the extent of Arctic Sea Ice was wrong. However, on August 25, Goddard retracted his claim, saying that  it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated.
Whoops!
"Steve Goddard does not have a background in climate science. He has primarily published his articles in blogs and newspapers using a pseudonym, and it is unlikely he has ever published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject."
BV, you're wasting your time. Rock doesn't think scientific credentials matter. He works in the petrochemical industry and his circle of contacts has reached the collective conclusion that climate change is bunk. These are the same people who told him it was 100% certain that Willard Romney would beat Barack Obama, so they're a shabby group of prophets and analysts, but he's sticking with them.
It's funny that he agrees with 90 year old non-climatologist Freeman Dyson about climate change "100%," since Dyson's all over the map on the subject. And Dyson cheerfully admits he doesn't know much about the facts behind the science. Which is okay, because facts no longer matter on that side of the political spectrum.
Dyson suggests planting some trees that grow fast will save us from climate change. No, really, that's his solution. Awesome, huh? Let's grab shovels!
Comments
I haven't seen anyone here argue one way or another that it's not.
Watching your Pavlovian reactions to a simply stated fact is pretty damn entertaining.
You create a previously unmentioned strawman and then argue against it.
This tends to give credibility to those who state "Liberalism is a mental disorder".
You generally take their side anyway, so what possible difference does it make?
You start tossing around another current moronic wingnut bumper sticker slogan about "Gun Free Zones" and you pretend you're not carrying their water for them.
Sure you're not.
Tell me some more about how global climate change is a hoax, Unca Reagan.
Sometimes it is smarter to save your battles for those that are winnable.
The Republican party and many conservatives have come to the conclusion that they have lost the same sex marriage battle. They are cutting their loses and concentrating on other issues.
The issue of gun control, like campaign finance, is lost. At least on the national level.
I don't carry anyone's water.
According to the "Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence" Bill Clinton passed the GFZSA in 1994 as a response to increasing levels of gun violence in schools. As you stated, this is a sensible policy, but for some reason you just don't like the name of it. The same basic policies are in place on all Military bases in the U.S. The only thing you object to is using the term "Gun Free Zone", the very term used by Clinton when he passed the law?
When there is no valid argument, you argue semantics.....no surprise there.
What is complete and utter bullshit is the Al Gore Global Warming narrative that has just happened to put millions of dollars in his pocket.
You can't change Nature.....Human or Mother.
please dont comment on climate change.
Luckily the inevitable reality is very much different. If there'd be a god I'd thank him for that.
hahaa. well said, frank. peace of mind comes from knowing we wont be here too much longer.
unfortunately, we'll drag a shit ton of other species down with us
Yea, but more species will adapt and evolve to replace them. Humans may not be so lucky. I would assume humans will adapt in some manner as well, there just won't be as many of us. Which will be all the better most likely. No doubt we are screwing up the planet with pollution but as George Carlin said "the Earth will be fine". It may not be the same but, the Earth has always gone through major climate changes even before human were screwing stuff up. Species were going extent before we caused it. Hell, there was a time when flowers weren't even a thing if you can imagine that. Doesn't mean we shouldn't change for our own our well being but if we don't the Earth will just shrug us off like a tick.
But we do have a major impact on the earth and it's environment.
But that is not a reason to change our ways. Fuck other species.
We need to change our ways so that the next generation of meaningless people can live as well as we did.
The bigger question is who's going to fix it....Humans of course.
Al exploits human guilt and puts cash in his pocket.......to me that's worse than the detriments of Industrialization.
I don't know... the "exploitation of human guilt" is probably as old as prostitution and both are concepts that are ingrained in all of our societies. I mean what would the Catholic church be without the exploitation of human guilt? It's basically their entire concept condensed into just 4 words.
Here, I did it! Gun control, climatic change and now -religion. We've come full circle once again...
Long live the wonderful world of Soulstrut!
No one can elect the Catholic Church and force me to abide by it.
Al's "guilt exploitation" and "pocket stuffing" isn't melting the ice caps. It's also not causing species to become extinct due to destruction of their local ecosystem. It's not making people sick due to polluted water, like in WV and NC. It's also not causing a giant smog cloud over Beijing. It's not causing hurricanes and the like to be more powerful and destructive. like Katrina and Sandy.
I could go on.
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAAÔÇÖs US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ÔÇ£adjustingÔÇØ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ÔÇ£fabricatedÔÇØ by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaa-and-nasa-data-alterations-are-global/
Your (and the author's) first mistake is thinking that what is happening in the US, with respect to climate change is happening in the rest of the world. It isn't. It's like thinking that because the sun is down in Texas, the sky is dark and the wind is blowing, it must be that way for the entire world. It reminds me of the crackpot argument that climate change deniers make when they scream, "It's SNOWING!!! How can the Earth be warming?" Or in Goddards case, " It's cooler in the US than ever, so climate change can't be real".
Your next mistake is relying on a blog written by an Obama "birther" named Steven Goddard, ne Tony Heller.
Your last mistake is the one you have been making continually: Forgetting about "peer-review" of scientific claims. Here's a rebuttal on Goddard/ Heller's claim, that took all of 40 seconds to find on the intranets.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe
"Goddard made two major errors in his analysis, which produced results showing a large bias due to infilling that doesnÔÇÖt really exist. First, he is simply averaging absolute temperatures rather than using anomalies. Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time. If the composition does change, you will often find that stations dropping out will result in climatological biases in the network due to differences in elevation and average temperatures that donÔÇÖt necessarily reflect any real information on month-to-month or year-to-year variability. Lucia covered this well a few years back with a toy model, so IÔÇÖd suggest people who are still confused about the subject to consult her spherical cow.
His second error is to not use any form of spatial weighting (e.g. gridding) when combining station records. While the USHCN network is fairly well distributed across the U.S., its not perfectly so, and some areas of the country have considerably more stations than others. Not gridding also can exacerbate the effect of station drop-out when the stations that drop out are not randomly distributed."
Using a computer model to represent historical facts instead of using the actual facts is bullshit.
"Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic and guest author at the climate change skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). The name ÔÇ£Steven GoddardÔÇØ is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller, according to the Heartland Institute. [2]
Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [3], [4]"
Oops.
Hitching one's wagon to this guy is not a good idea.
"August 15, 2008
Steven Goddard Published an article titled Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered in The Register. Goddard claimed that the National Snow and Ice Data Center plot of the extent of Arctic Sea Ice was wrong. However, on August 25, Goddard retracted his claim, saying that  it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated.
Whoops!
"Steve Goddard does not have a background in climate science. He has primarily published his articles in blogs and newspapers using a pseudonym, and it is unlikely he has ever published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject."
:woah:
It's funny that he agrees with 90 year old non-climatologist Freeman Dyson about climate change "100%," since Dyson's all over the map on the subject. And Dyson cheerfully admits he doesn't know much about the facts behind the science. Which is okay, because facts no longer matter on that side of the political spectrum.
Dyson suggests planting some trees that grow fast will save us from climate change. No, really, that's his solution. Awesome, huh? Let's grab shovels!
The fact that he's using a birther as his climate change source is disappointing, though.
I would say that Goddard being dead wrong in the past, then having to retract his dead wrong statement, makes him bullshit.
Solid chance he's dead wrong about what you posted. I eagerly await his retraction.