So....the "consensus" on global warming was a crock all along? - Page 152 - E46Fanatics 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

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 Display Modes
Old 01-30-2016, 08:57 AM   #3021
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
I know you guys like peer-reviewed stuff:

http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/new...limate-change/


Who would have thought, there's another side to the propaganda story?
An interesting single paper, I'll be interested in reading more on it
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2016, 09:37 AM   #3022
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 991
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
I know you guys like peer-reviewed stuff:

http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/new...limate-change/


Who would have thought, there's another side to the propaganda story?
Quote:
This required using only surface temperature data from stations not affected by a changing environment.
I too can show whatever I want about climate change if I don't include data from stations that are affected by it. Brb, writing grant request.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
We will not tolerate intolerance.
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2016, 10:10 AM   #3023
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 176
My Ride: 2013 F30 335i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
What Marxists?

Are there even any left (please note that it's 2016, not 1956).

Where did you ascertain that 97%,of climatologists are Marxist? Do we even have any data as to their political affiliations?

Even if they were (extremely doubtful), how would that necessarily invalidate their scientific research and conclusions?

Similarly, using the same logic (or lack thereof), are we to assume that AGW denialism is being pushed by, what, Corporatist Fascists?

I think you are letting your political/ideological disdain for AGW, thinly veiled under some lose quasi-scientific jargon, reveal itself a bit too much.
AoG's suggestion about Marxists is no more absurd than your constant claim that capitalists are behind the disagreement, so it is particularly rich that you use your own mentality as an example of absurd thought.

And you, dear dhumb, are the poster child for allowing your political/ideological disdain cloud your thinking. So much so that you can't even recognize the selfie-diss you just hit yourself with.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2016, 10:16 AM   #3024
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
AoG's suggestion about Marxists is no more absurd than your constant claim that capitalists are behind the disagreement, so it is particularly rich that you use your own mentality as an example of absurd thought.

And you, dear dhumb, are the poster child for allowing your political/ideological disdain cloud your thinking. So much so that you can't even recognize the selfie-diss you just hit yourself with.
As I recall, uber-capitalist Koch brothers have quietly funded a number of think-tank and PR organizations denying AGW, along with a number of other similar organizations being backed by the fossil fuel industry.

I was well aware of the internal absurdity I crafted in my post, that was the basic point, even if perhaps the idea of anti-AGW disinformation disseminated by entities on the right might well have a more sound basis.

As for what informs me regarding AGW, I'll stick with the overwhelming majority of actual scientists and climate science, and let my ideology/policies follow from that.

Last edited by Rhumb; 01-30-2016 at 10:21 AM.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2016, 11:00 AM   #3025
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
What Marxists?

Are there even any left (please note that it's 2016, not 1956).
First of all, there are many. Just ask Obama when he sought them out in college (in his own words). Mind you, many of these isms on the left are fairly interchangeable depending on which 2nd semester freshman you speak with.

Secondly, I have shown quotes upon quotes upon quotes of AGW proponents simultaneously calling for the end of capitalism as the solution to this "problem". They go hand in hand and are perfect bedfellows.
__________________
The left hates 3 things: Racism, Sexism and White Men
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2016, 12:20 PM   #3026
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
First of all, there are many. Just ask Obama when he sought them out in college (in his own words). Mind you, many of these isms on the left are fairly interchangeable depending on which 2nd semester freshman you speak with.

Secondly, I have shown quotes upon quotes upon quotes of AGW proponents simultaneously calling for the end of capitalism as the solution to this "problem". They go hand in hand and are perfect bedfellows.
Maybe a second semester freshman of thirtyfive years ago who had some old Marxist holdover professor. Some anecdotes aside, I don't see Marxism as any significant element of addressing AGW, much less so in the science backing it.

Indeed, most of the solutions are primarily market based (Cap and Trade) or supporting private enterprises in researching and developing cleaner energy sources. As it should be.

AGW is not inherently anti-capitalist nor are the solutions to address it except perhaps the most extreme understandings of capitalism. I think the fears that even acknowledging, much less addressing, AGW are the first big leaps down a slippery-slope to Mao suits and the Little Red Book are hyperbolic at best and profoundly dangerous at worst.

Perhaps this isn't quite the pure, utterly unfettered capitalism championed by some, but it is far from anything resembling Marxism.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2016, 12:35 PM   #3027
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Maybe a second semester freshman of thirtyfive years ago who had some old Marxist holdover professor. Some anecdotes aside, I don't see Marxism as any significant element of addressing AGW, much less so in the science backing it.

Indeed, most of the solutions are primarily market based (Cap and Trade) or supporting private enterprises in researching and developing cleaner energy sources. As it should be.

AGW is not inherently anti-capitalist nor are the solutions to address it except perhaps the most extreme understandings of capitalism. I think the fears that even acknowledging, much less addressing, AGW are the first big leaps down a slippery-slope to Mao suits and the Little Red Book are hyperbolic at best and profoundly dangerous at worst.

Perhaps this isn't quite the pure, utterly unfettered capitalism championed by some, but it is far from anything resembling Marxism.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Have you read anything in this thread? I have several posts of top AGW people talking about getting rid of capitalism.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...der-capitalism

http://www.workers.org/2010/world/save_the_planet_0624/

http://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/

http://www.climatechangenews.com/201...-commandments/

There's a start, the rest is already in this thread.
__________________
The left hates 3 things: Racism, Sexism and White Men
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2016, 12:38 PM   #3028
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Top AGW people? Third tier at best and that's being generous.

I think this is far more a case of some on the right trying to elevate to some level of AGW preeminence a few peripheral characters few on the left know of much less listen to. Basically an elaborate straw man argument.

Last edited by Rhumb; 01-30-2016 at 12:45 PM.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2016, 10:05 AM   #3029
BraveUlysses
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 17
My Ride: 2003 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Why is AGW theory almost exclusively pushed by Marxists?
Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World?

Also, good to see you are still too much of a coward to share your thoughts on the article I posted last week.
BraveUlysses is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2016, 10:19 AM   #3030
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveUlysses View Post
Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World?

Also, good to see you are still too much of a coward to share your thoughts on the article I posted last week.
I have no idea what you are even talking about assman
__________________
The left hates 3 things: Racism, Sexism and White Men
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2016, 10:26 AM   #3031
BraveUlysses
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 17
My Ride: 2003 330i
Coward. Through and through.
BraveUlysses is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2016, 11:08 AM   #3032
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 176
My Ride: 2013 F30 335i
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveUlysses View Post
Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World?

Also, good to see you are still too much of a coward to share your thoughts on the article I posted last week.
This piece commits the same factual errors that you and dhumb and others constantly commit. No one is denying climate science and no one is denying climate change. Yes, your piece actually says Republicans deny there is a science dedicated to studying climate, and they deny the climate is changing. That is absurd, but what is truly pathetic is that you actually believe that.

What many thoughtful Republicans - as well as many scientists - deny is that anthropological global warming is an "actual scientific fact" (no matter how many times dhumb claims it is so). They also deny that most policies and actions proposed by those who accept that AGW is "actual scientific fact" will produce any measurable correction to the AGW that may or may not actually be happening.

But I understand why you and others must constantly declare that Republicans deny climate science (lol) and deny climate change (double lol): it is because you cannot answer the legitimate questions that many Republicans and scientists raise.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2016, 12:17 PM   #3033
BraveUlysses
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 17
My Ride: 2003 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
This piece commits the same factual errors that you and dhumb and others constantly commit. No one is denying climate science and no one is denying climate change. Yes, your piece actually says Republicans deny there is a science dedicated to studying climate, and they deny the climate is changing. That is absurd, but what is truly pathetic is that you actually believe that.
I obviously brought it up as a tongue in cheek response to this unbelievably stupid comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Why is AGW theory almost exclusively pushed by Marxists?
AoG is nothing more a conspiracy theorist with a layman's understanding of science and statistics.
BraveUlysses is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2016, 01:25 PM   #3034
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
Lol
__________________
The left hates 3 things: Racism, Sexism and White Men
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2016, 02:12 PM   #3035
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 176
My Ride: 2013 F30 335i
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveUlysses View Post
I obviously brought it up as a tongue in cheek response to this unbelievably stupid comment.
Oh. Well then, never mind.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2016, 02:56 PM   #3036
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
This piece commits the same factual errors that you and dhumb and others constantly commit. No one is denying climate science and no one is denying climate change. Yes, your piece actually says Republicans deny there is a science dedicated to studying climate, and they deny the climate is changing. That is absurd, but what is truly pathetic is that you actually believe that.
What most on the right are doing is confabulating various aspects of this discussion. For a while, the Deniers were essentially denying any significant climate change. When that position became untenable against obvious evidence, then did they find refuge in various positions that the climate is always changing (basically a meaningless truism, everything's always changing), that it's cooling, that it's all the sun -- basically anything evading the overwhelming evidence and consensus of climate scientists worldwide that its AGW due to CO2 emissions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
What many thoughtful Republicans - as well as many scientists - deny is that anthropological global warming is an "actual scientific fact" (no matter how many times dhumb claims it is so). They also deny that most policies and actions proposed by those who accept that AGW is "actual scientific fact" will produce any measurable correction to the AGW that may or may not actually be happening.
Yes, most Republicans do deny AGW (as well as a scant few scientists), it's how "thoughtful" that denial is that under contention. A main denialist tactic is to conflate colloquial and rhetorical usages of various scientific terms and understandings ("actual scientific fact" to borrow your example, or that it's "just a theory," implying something along the lines of a hunch) with their actual usages and understandings of these terms, which is often quite different.

Whether various proposed remedies would ameliorate AGW is, of course, a whole other topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
But I understand why you and others must constantly declare that Republicans deny climate science (lol) and deny climate change (double lol): it is because you cannot answer the legitimate questions that many Republicans and scientists raise.
Republicans seem to be indulging in a convenient ala carte understanding of climate science and climate change, tactically accepting the more benign aspects of it while denying, obfuscating or dismissing those parts that would somehow fetter the fossil fuel industry. The strategies and tactics used by the fossil fuel industries and their apologists are drearily familiar, being nearly identical (even to using the same firms and people) that were used in earlier times to put off actions regarding acid rain, tobacco and cancer, asbestos, etc. Anyone familiar with these earlier disinformation campaigns readily see the same methods, fingerprints and faces.

Inevitably, as with those earlier campaigns, they will fail of the weight of fact and reality and actions, belatedly, will be taken but only after untold avoidable harm and damage. Mark my words that what the fossil fuel industries and those dependent on them are trying to do is run out the clock to the point where in fact it will be too late to avoid significant harm from AGW at which point, the refrain will be, "Oops, sorry, might as well keep using fossil fuels now anyways."

By the way, again, addressing AGW is not inherently anti-free market or anti-capitalist. Might those efforts challenge existing businesses and practices? Probably just as the advent of fossil fuels disrupted and reshaped the commerce and economies that preceded them. There are twice as many solar workers as coal miners while Cap and Trade is primarily a free-market approach first developed by conservatives.

In a related aside, Slate's Phil Plait readily dissects the latest bit of denialist hot air:

Climate Change Denier Claims (Heh) That 2015 Wasn't (Ha) the Hottest Year on Record (HAHAHAHA!)
Excerpt:
Quote:
I (and many others) have shown that the loudest voices in the climate change denial noise machine have long since run out of any real credibility. There are numerous ways to reach that conclusion; for example you can look at how their claims have changed over the years (there's no warming, there's not much warming, it's not warming enough to worry about, warming is good for plants, sure it's warming but it'll hurt our economy to do anything about it), you can look at their funding sources (tobacco and fossil fuel interests) whose tactics they deploy, or the fact that they rely on long-debunked claims instead of any real evidence.

But despite this, they do go on. And have no doubt: What they say has real-life consequences-life and death consequences, in fact, for millions of people. More. I'll get back to that in a moment.

As the denial never seems to cease, I think they're not only short on credibility, they're also just short on ways to sell their snake oil. Their ideas get weirder and less believable every time they speak.

That's the only conclusion I can draw when the claims I see now are so ridiculous, so outrageously, blatantly wrong that it's hard to believe they can make them with a straight face...

...Taylor's article was printed in Forbes, and right away, just from the headline, you know you're about to take a trip into WTFery: "2015 Was Not Even Close to Hottest Year on Record."

This is one of the wrongiest wrongs to have ever been wronged. Yes, far and away, without question, and where it counts, 2015 was the hottest year on record. Many, many temperature readings confirm that, and it's not even close; even if you account for El Niño (which tends to make things warmer overall), 2015 blew away the previously hottest year of 2014.

So how can Taylor make this claim? Well, as usual, it's to cherry-pick a very, very specific set of circumstances: Satellite measurements of a single layer of the atmosphere. As I (and many others) have shown, these satellite measurements are not terribly reliable over the long term, and are nowhere near as accurate as temperatures measured from the ground using thermometers.

Despite this, Taylor states, "By contrast, temperature measurements at the Earth's surface are less reliable," which is just flatly wrong. Seriously. It's just complete fertilizer. If you think I'm being too harsh, then I suggest you read what actual climate scientists have to say about Taylor's claims, because you'll see words and phrases like "total fabrication" and "very misleading" and "disingenuous" and "inaccurate" and "wild misrepresentation." I'm pretty gentle by comparison.

Here's an analogy for you: Taylor saying satellite measurements show 2015 isn't the hottest year is like inspecting a horrendous car crash, finding the steering wheel intact, and claiming the accident never happened.

The article is embarrassingly bad, even for an op-ed in Forbes (which has run several such comically wrong articles by Taylor in the past). It's just so egregiously and obviously and in-your-face wrong, though, that I have to assume it's aimed only at those who are ideologically predisposed to believe him, in an effort to sow doubt.
More.

Last edited by Rhumb; 02-01-2016 at 02:58 PM.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 08:45 AM   #3037
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...p-by-the-data/
"Hottest Year on Record Claim Not Backed By Data
__________________
The left hates 3 things: Racism, Sexism and White Men
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 12:41 PM   #3038
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...p-by-the-data/
"Hottest Year on Record Claim Not Backed By Data
According to one scientist who seems to be trotting out, whack-a-mole fashion, a lot of spurious and debunked contentions.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2016, 07:41 AM   #3039
bagher
Account closed.
 
bagher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 17,917
Send a message via AIM to bagher
is that a real website? The about us button doesn't work
bagher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2016, 08:12 AM   #3040
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 4,907
My Ride: E46 M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bagher View Post
is that a real website? The about us button doesn't work
Worked for me.

Quote:
About IBD

Ordinary Investors, Extraordinary Results

Since 1984, Investor's Business Daily (IBD) has been helping ordinary people achieve extraordinary results.

This is done with a unique step-by-step investing strategy anyone can use to systematically achieve financial freedom over time.

And it works. According to an independent, real-time study of more than 50 leading strategies by the American Association of Individual Investors from January 1998 through December 2012, our system - known as CAN SLIM® - gained 24.7% compared to a gain of just 2.6% for the S & P 500.

Over the last quarter-century, countless investors have paid off their homes, put their children through college and built the foundation for a worry-free retirement, by following IBD's CAN SLIM strategy for growing - and protecting - their money.

It's an approach based on historical fact, not opinion. And anyone can use it successfully. Find out how by learning more about our investing discipline, products & services, and company history.

About Investor's Business Daily

Investor's Business Daily provides exclusive stock lists, investing data, stock market research, education and the latest financial and business news to help investors make more money in the stock market. All of IBD's products and features are based on the CAN SLIM® Investing System developed by IBD's Founder William J. O'Neil, who identified the seven common characteristics that winning stocks display before making huge price gains. Each letter of CAN SLIM represents one of those traits.
__________________
Quote:
“But as I look overall at the capitalist economies, there are a lot of good things doing, and I think you can tune the tax parameters and get way more equity and get some additional government services and still be in the same basic framework.”

Last edited by bimmerfan08; 02-07-2016 at 08:13 AM.
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 01:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) 1999 - VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.