E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-28-2014, 06:35 PM   #781
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
I am a skeptic myself but I am leery of celebrity pronouncements. He does have a point though, the scientific link between human activity and global temperature, is speculative at best.
be careful, bagher might call you an uncle tom
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2014, 06:46 PM   #782
bagher
Registered User
 
bagher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vienna, VA
Posts: 17,850
My Ride: Marshmallow logic
Send a message via AIM to bagher Send a message via Skype™ to bagher
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ynd1cat3 View Post
Awwww man.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...fic-proof-hum/


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app

That settles that!


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app
__________________
bagher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2014, 06:17 AM   #783
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 612
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by bagher View Post
That settles that!


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app
If science is the governing principle, nothing is ever settled. Anyone who claims a scientific issue is "settled science", is either dishonest, intellectually inept, or both.

Always question, always prove things. Even the Bible tells you that.
__________________
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2014, 10:33 AM   #784
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Trolls.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 10:59 AM   #785
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Smyrna
Posts: 127
My Ride: 2005 330cic ZHP
My favorite line in this piece: "...it appears that in our efforts to combat warming we may have been taking the economic equivalent of chemotherapy for a cold." Bold/italics are my emphasis, not edits.

Quote:
Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm

Even while it exaggerates the amount of warming, the IPCC is becoming more cautious about its effects.

By Matt Ridley

March 27, 2014 7:24 p.m. ET


The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will shortly publish the second part of its latest report, on the likely impact of climate change. Government representatives are meeting with scientists in Japan to sex up—sorry, rewrite—a summary of the scientists' accounts of storms, droughts and diseases to come. But the actual report, known as AR5-WGII, is less frightening than its predecessor seven years ago.

The 2007 report was riddled with errors about Himalayan glaciers, the Amazon rain forest, African agriculture, water shortages and other matters, all of which erred in the direction of alarm. This led to a critical appraisal of the report-writing process from a council of national science academies, some of whose recommendations were simply ignored.

Others, however, hit home. According to leaks, this time the full report is much more cautious and vague about worsening cyclones, changes in rainfall, climate-change refugees, and the overall cost of global warming.

It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century. This is vastly less than the much heralded prediction of Lord Stern, who said climate change would cost 5%-20% of world GDP in his influential 2006 report for the British government.

The forthcoming report apparently admits that climate change has extinguished no species so far and expresses "very little confidence" that it will do so. There is new emphasis that climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters and on adapting to it rather than preventing it. Yet the report still assumes 70% more warming by the last decades of this century than the best science now suggests. This is because of an overreliance on models rather than on data in the first section of the IPCC report—on physical science—that was published in September 2013.

In this space on Dec. 19, 2012, I forecast that the IPCC was going to have to lower its estimates of future warming because of new sensitivity results. (Sensitivity is the amount of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.) "Cooling Down Fears of Climate Change" (Dec. 19), led to a storm of protest, in which I was called "anti-science," a "denier" and worse.

The IPCC's September 2013 report abandoned any attempt to estimate the most likely "sensitivity" of the climate to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The explanation, buried in a technical summary not published until January, is that "estimates derived from observed climate change tend to best fit the observed surface and ocean warming for [sensitivity] values in the lower part of the likely range." Translation: The data suggest we probably face less warming than the models indicate, but we would rather not say so.


The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a London think tank, published a careful survey of all the reliable studies of sensitivity on March 5. The authors are British climate scientist Nic Lewis (who has no academic affiliation but a growing reputation since he discovered a glaring statistical distortion that exaggerated climate sensitivity in the previous IPCC report) and the Dutch science writer Marcel Crok. They say the IPCC's September report "buried good news about global warming," and that "the best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate scientists had previously thought."

Messrs. Lewis and Crok argue that the average of the best observationally based studies shows the amount of immediate warming to be expected if carbon dioxide levels double after 70 years is "likely" to be between one and two degrees Centigrade, with a best estimate of 1.35C (or 2.4F). That's much lower than the IPCC assumes in its forthcoming report.

In short, the warming we experienced over the past 35 years—about 0.4C (or 0.7F) if you average the measurements made by satellites and those made by ground stations—is likely to continue at about the same rate: a little over a degree a century.

Briefly during the 1990s there did seem to be warming that went as fast as the models wanted. But for the past 15-17 years there has been essentially no net warming (a "hiatus" now conceded by the IPCC), a fact that the models did not predict and now struggle to explain. The favorite post-hoc explanation is that because of natural variability in ocean currents more heat has been slipping into the ocean since 2000—although the evidence for this is far from conclusive.

None of this contradicts basic physics. Doubling carbon dioxide cannot on its own generate more than about 1.1C (2F) of warming, however long it takes. All the putative warming above that level would come from amplifying factors, chiefly related to water vapor and clouds. The net effect of these factors is the subject of contentious debate.

In climate science, the real debate has never been between "deniers" and the rest, but between "lukewarmers," who think man-made climate change is real but fairly harmless, and those who think the future is alarming. Scientists like Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Richard Lindzen of MIT have moved steadily toward lukewarm views in recent years.

Even with its too-high, too-fast assumptions, the recently leaked draft of the IPCC impacts report makes clear that when it comes to the effect on human welfare, "for most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers," such as economic growth and technology, for the rest of this century. If temperatures change by about 1C degrees between now and 2090, as Mr. Lewis calculates, then the effects will be even smaller.

Indeed, a small amount of warming spread over a long period will, most experts think, bring net improvements to human welfare. Studies such as by the IPCC author and economist Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University in Britain show that global warming has probably done so already. People can adapt to such change—which essentially means capture the benefits but minimize the harm. Satellites have recorded a roughly 14% increase in greenery on the planet over the past 30 years, in all types of ecosystems, partly as a result of man-made CO2 emissions, which enable plants to grow faster and use less water.

There remains a risk that the latest science is wrong and rapid warming will occur with disastrous consequences. And if renewable energy had proved by now to be cheap, clean and thrifty in its use of land, then we would be right to address that small risk of a large catastrophe by rushing to replace fossil fuels with first-generation wind, solar and bioenergy. But since these forms of energy have proved expensive, environmentally damaging and land-hungry, it appears that in our efforts to combat warming we may have been taking the economic equivalent of chemotherapy for a cold.

Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population "bomb," pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different.

Mr. Ridley is the author of "The Rational Optimist" (HarperCollins, 2010) and a member of the British House of Lords.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...&mg=reno64-wsj

Of course, there are many "if" and "may" qualifiers in this piece, as there should be - a striking difference from AGW sycophants who insist there are no ifs in their position, because, you know, 97% of scientists agree.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 12:12 PM   #786
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Oh now the pause is accepted?
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 12:26 PM   #787
HacksawMark
OEM ///Member
 
HacksawMark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,101
My Ride: 2014 Subaru XV
Dammit, there goes my ocean side property in Nevada.....
__________________
06 Quartz Blue 325Ci - Sold
HacksawMark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 12:34 PM   #788
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
You guys are full of sh*t. We should rename this thread "The occasional WSJ/Daily Mail opinion piece climate change denial thread".
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 01:54 PM   #789
5ynd1cat3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 476
My Ride: swagger wagon
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
You guys are full of sh*t. We should rename this thread "The occasional WSJ/Daily Mail opinion piece climate change denial thread".

Or we could keep the original name since it's actually true...unlike your precious catastrophic man-made global warming.



Sent from BimmerApp mobile app
__________________
5ynd1cat3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 07:28 PM   #790
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Smyrna
Posts: 127
My Ride: 2005 330cic ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
You guys are full of sh*t. We should rename this thread "The occasional WSJ/Daily Mail opinion piece climate change denial thread".
Well, we can conclude from this lame post that you have finally run out of your usual sh*t. You are making progress.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 04:58 AM   #791
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 612
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
The term "denier" or any variant, is more appropriate in a religious discussion. I fail to see its place in a scientific forum.

Whenever I see the term used, I realize the depths of vacuity of its author.
__________________
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

Last edited by ti317; 03-29-2014 at 04:58 AM.
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 08:42 AM   #792
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
Well, we can conclude from this lame post that you have finally run out of your usual sh*t. You are making progress.
I've run out of patience for dealing with bullsh*t of people who have no intention of learning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
The term "denier" or any variant, is more appropriate in a religious discussion. I fail to see its place in a scientific forum.

Whenever I see the term used, I realize the depths of vacuity of its author.
I fail to see your place in a scientific forum.
__________________

Last edited by 'busa; 03-29-2014 at 08:43 AM.
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 10:22 AM   #793
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 612
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
I've run out of patience for dealing with bullsh*t of people who have no intention of learning.

I fail to see your place in a scientific forum.
And I fail to see your general use, other than as a source of carbon emission. Do the right thing.

BTW, note that I made a point of not replying to your post you are the only person in this community to whom I feel true antipathy. You are truly surly and useless.
__________________
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

Last edited by ti317; 03-29-2014 at 10:23 AM.
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 10:27 AM   #794
Lair
E46Fanatic
 
Lair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Council housing
Posts: 320
My Ride: 330ciC
Cool.

Let's keep dumping shlt into our water and pumping chemicals into the air. Better yet, let's do it more! If it really is creatig a problem, your kids and grandchildren can sort it out.
__________________

Quote:
Are you following him?

Yes.
Congratulations.
Lair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 10:48 AM   #795
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 4,890
My Ride: Phoenix Yellow M3
__________________
"Economics cannot answer such normative or prescriptive questions about how much of our market incomes, if any, should be transferred to poor families. This is a political question that can only be answered at the ballot box, or in some countries, at the point of a gun."
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 11:05 AM   #796
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lair View Post
Cool.

Let's keep dumping shlt into our water and pumping chemicals into the air. Better yet, let's do it more! If it really is creatig a problem, your kids and grandchildren can sort it out.
Carbon dioxide is not a "chemical", we exhale it
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 11:29 AM   #797
Lair
E46Fanatic
 
Lair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Council housing
Posts: 320
My Ride: 330ciC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Carbon dioxide is not a "chemical", we exhale it
wat

Apparently you've been inhaling it.
__________________

Quote:
Are you following him?

Yes.
Congratulations.
Lair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 11:32 AM   #798
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 4,890
My Ride: Phoenix Yellow M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Carbon dioxide is not a "chemical", we exhale it
CO2 is a chemical compound.

Quote:

Question: What Is a Chemical?

Answer: Short answer: Everything is a chemical. Longer answer: Chemistry is the study of matter and its interactions with other matter. Anything made of matter is therefore a chemical. Any liquid, solid, gas. Any pure substance; any mixture. Water is a chemical. Technically speaking, so is a chunk of your computer. A chemical can often be broken down into components, as is true with your computer. However, people generally use the term 'chemical' to refer to a substance that appears homogeneous or the same throughout its structure.
I wish more people had an appreciation and understanding of chemistry.
__________________
"Economics cannot answer such normative or prescriptive questions about how much of our market incomes, if any, should be transferred to poor families. This is a political question that can only be answered at the ballot box, or in some countries, at the point of a gun."
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 02:00 PM   #799
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
I used quotes for a reason
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2014, 05:06 PM   #800
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
And I fail to see your general use, other than as a source of carbon emission. Do the right thing.
Are you telling me to kill myself in a clever way? Shouldn't there be some sort of trophy for that particular type of internet assholism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
BTW, note that I made a point of not replying to your post you are the only person in this community to whom I feel true antipathy. You are truly surly and useless.
I haven't noticed that you're not replying to me. Wait... what do you call this?

Being not liked by some people is truly a compliment. Thanks.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use