So....the "consensus" on global warming was a crock all along? - Page 112 - 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 02-24-2015, 05:18 PM   #2221
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 MDydinanM View Post
Of course you would
It is inherently flawed because they do not re-source the material/data. They check methodology, which is only half the story (if that). As I have said many times, garbage in-garbage out.

I know it would be extremely tedious and ridiculous to do so, but you can't just go in assuming that the data is 100% true.
__________________
The left hates 3 things: Racism, Sexism and White Men
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 05:21 PM   #2222
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 760
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
It is inherently flawed because they do not re-source the material/data. They check methodology, which is only half the story (if that). As I have said many times, garbage in-garbage out.

I know it would be extremely tedious and ridiculous to do so, but you can't just go in assuming that the data is 100% true.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but peer review, at least the way I've done it is that you do, in fact, provide the data and have it reviewed. Analysis, logic, findings -- the whole kit and caboodle -- has to be checked.
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 05:22 PM   #2223
WDE46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Old Greg's Cavern
Posts: 13,052
My Ride: '13 128i STX
What about the data makes you think it's inaccurate? You think no one examines the methodology of obtaining the data?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
WDE46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 05:54 PM   #2224
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 173
My Ride: 2013 F30 335i
Quote:
Originally Posted by WDE46 View Post
IDK how he's getting 30 mpg on the highway. My 330 could get that doing 65-70 on flat ground no wind. But who the **** drives an M3 that slow?
I shall join you in announcing that once again, dhumb is full of sh*t.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 05:55 PM   #2225
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
lol mine got 19 mpg, you're insane

Gas guzzler tax attached to the E46 M3
https://www.e46fanatics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62265
Highest I ever got was about 32mpg but that was driving like a granny trying to purposefully hypermile it (no ac, 55mph, trying every trick to eke out every mpg).

I can get 30mpg highway trying a little bit and 27mpg not trying at all.

Bought mine used, so I didn't run into any GG tax.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 05:59 PM   #2226
Lair
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Liberal Paradise
Posts: 346
My Ride: e90,e90, $5k Boxster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
I shall join you in announcing that once again, dhumb is full of sh*t.
Another personal attack?
__________________
The Hunter S Thompson of e46f.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Lair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 06:09 PM   #2227
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 173
My Ride: 2013 F30 335i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lair View Post
Another personal attack?
Are you asking because you aren't sure?
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 06:28 PM   #2228
Lair
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Liberal Paradise
Posts: 346
My Ride: e90,e90, $5k Boxster
It's a rhetorical question. Everybody knows how you roll.
__________________
The Hunter S Thompson of e46f.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Lair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 07:03 PM   #2229
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 WDE46 View Post
What about the data makes you think it's inaccurate? You think no one examines the methodology of obtaining the data?
Dude we've been over this. Climate data is collected and stored by only a few entities. When scientists do a study they aren't going out and measuring things...they are using data sets that are available to use.

No one checks the data sets. We've already seen one of the majors, East Anglia, literally say that they would alter data to fit the studies. I've shown several articles showing how NOAA and NASA are cooling past temperatures with "revisions".

All. Garbage.
__________________
The left hates 3 things: Racism, Sexism and White Men
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 07:13 PM   #2230
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lair View Post
Another personal attack?
Well, when you run out of actual argument...
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 07:55 PM   #2231
WDE46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Old Greg's Cavern
Posts: 13,052
My Ride: '13 128i STX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Dude we've been over this. Climate data is collected and stored by only a few entities. When scientists do a study they aren't going out and measuring things...they are using data sets that are available to use.

No one checks the data sets. We've already seen one of the majors, East Anglia, literally say that they would alter data to fit the studies. I've shown several articles showing how NOAA and NASA are cooling past temperatures with "revisions".

All. Garbage.
really, no one checks it? What do you call NASA's revisioins? Seems like they're updating the data with new information. Unfortunately, it's in the wrong direction, so I assume you say it's invalid. So what's acceptable?

You would ONLY accept data that supports your view. This is why you're more religious than anyone you were trying to criticize earlier.

You have a closed loop of reasoning that basically causes you to reject anything that doesn't support your archaic world view. And this is one of the reasons why you're one of like 2 people on the forums I don't have an ounce of respect for (not that you care or really should care what some guy on the internet thinks of you).
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by WDE46; 02-24-2015 at 07:57 PM.
WDE46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 07:58 PM   #2232
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 760
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by WDE46 View Post
You would ONLY accept data that supports your view. This is why you're more religious than anyone you were trying to criticize earlier.

You have a closed loop of reasoning that basically causes you to reject anything that doesn't support your archaic world view. And this is one of the reasons why you're one of like 2 people on the forums I don't have an ounce of respect for (not that you care or really should care what some guy on the internet thinks of you).
nailed it
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 08:29 PM   #2233
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 4,907
My Ride: E46 M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by WDE46 View Post
really, no one checks it? What do you call NASA's revisioins? Seems like they're updating the data with new information. Unfortunately, it's in the wrong direction, so I assume you say it's invalid. So what's acceptable?

You would ONLY accept data that supports your view. This is why you're more religious than anyone you were trying to criticize earlier.

You have a closed loop of reasoning that basically causes you to reject anything that doesn't support your archaic world view. And this is one of the reasons why you're one of like 2 people on the forums I don't have an ounce of respect for (not that you care or really should care what some guy on the internet thinks of you).
Who's the other person if you don't mind me asking? Just curious...
__________________
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.”
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 09:40 PM   #2234
WDE46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Old Greg's Cavern
Posts: 13,052
My Ride: '13 128i STX
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post
Who's the other person if you don't mind me asking? Just curious...
Some guy said that protecting the ecosystem was his religion. AoG of course takes this to mean that he would fake data to prove AGW. When in reality it means that he'd be more motivated to find what causes actual damage and to stop that.

AGW is a crappy reality. IDK why anyone would want it to be true. No one is TRYING to prove that we can hurt our own planet. It just works out like that. And we've shown time and time again, that humans significantly impact their environment.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
WDE46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2015, 10:07 PM   #2235
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 173
My Ride: 2013 F30 335i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Well, when you run out of actual argument...
Dude, you have yet to post a single argument without disparaging anyone who disagrees with you. I assume it is because you aren't capable of honest and persuasive discourse and I call you out because your pomposity is easy pickin'.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2015, 12:25 AM   #2236
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 WDE46 View Post
really, no one checks it? What do you call NASA's revisioins? Seems like they're updating the data with new information. Unfortunately, it's in the wrong direction, so I assume you say it's invalid. So what's acceptable?

You would ONLY accept data that supports your view. This is why you're more religious than anyone you were trying to criticize earlier.

You have a closed loop of reasoning that basically causes you to reject anything that doesn't support your archaic world view. And this is one of the reasons why you're one of like 2 people on the forums I don't have an ounce of respect for (not that you care or really should care what some guy on the internet thinks of you).
I really do have to applaud your fresh-out-of-college-engineer hubris, it truly is amusing. I also have to give you kudos for your outright refusal to acknowledge the point I have been making throughout this entire thread.

You see, climate change theory isn't proven by one study. The theory is based on a conglomerate of studies. As such, there is no one single study that will magically disprove the AGW hypothesis. Hence, the multitude of papers (some even PEER REVIEWED) that pick apart incorrect parts of the studies that are part of the entire AGW theory.

I don't have an archaic world view at all. In fact, I have more of an open mind than you do. I question authority, you question those that question authority like a good little automaton. I have an excellent bullshit detector and this entire subject is ringing the bells loud and clear. Here are some reasons:

1. The people most alarmed by our impending doom use more energy than anyone else by far. They don't walk the walk, because they know it's BS
2. The time to act is always NOW. There's no time to argue, debate or research. Listen to me now and think about what I said later. Heck, if we did that we would have undone our entire economy before the pause hit.
3. The IPCC's official stance is that man/co2 is having a "significant" (scientific term, not regular use) impact on naturally occurring warming. This says 2 things, most importantly:
a. The earth would be warming regardless of man/co2
b. They can't quantify the amount of warming that is only caused by man in relation to what would be occurring normally
4. Most importantly, there can be no questions! We're smart, you're dumb. Shut up!

I'm not even saying man has no impact on the environment or that AGW theory is 100% wrong. I'm saying that they don't know what the eff they are talking about yet and to move forward with the proposed "solutions" (that no study or scientist is on record as saying that it would make a difference) would be an exercise in panic and futility. Furthermore, there is ample evidence of shenanigans on the side of the alleged white knights...and even more financial incentive than the evil oil companies could ever promise.

I find it amazing that when we talk about the hottest days "on record" we're really only talking about a little over 100 years. The earth is billions of years old, 100 years isn't even a snapshot of climate on earth. I find it even funnier that when I questioned temperature measuring methods 100 years ago people told me that they knew what they were doing and the measurements were valid...but now I'm supposed to believe that we can better determine temperature from 100 years ago with a computer model versus actual measurements from the actual time.

Lastly, every model has been wrong. Every model. If the science is settled, the models would not be incorrect. It really is that simple.

I know you're all biting at the chomp to employ your tired old redistributive policies under the guise of environmentalism, but perhaps you should wait until you know what the hell you are talking about.

Let's not remember that climate change is a game of constantly moving goal posts. IIRC, Al Gore cited a study that said the arctic would be ice free by...2015.

Disaster is always right around the corner, until it isn't. Then it's right around the next corner. I've been hearing this crap since the early 90's, when I was told that there would be no rain forests in a few years.

__________________
The left hates 3 things: Racism, Sexism and White Men

Last edited by Act of God; 02-25-2015 at 12:50 AM.
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2015, 07:31 AM   #2237
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 173
My Ride: 2013 F30 335i
^^^ Well put. I question your sanity only in the context of wasting your time to persuade the un-persuadable.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2015, 07:43 AM   #2238
WDE46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Old Greg's Cavern
Posts: 13,052
My Ride: '13 128i STX
So....the "consensus" on global warming was a crock all along?

Haha lot of hot air from AoG. How many ways can you rephrase the same bullshit?

You're afraid to move forward with solutions? Oh yes reducing air borne pollutants is certainly such a risky proposition. We'll all definitely regret no longer being dependent on fossil fuels. Pfffffttttt.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by WDE46; 02-25-2015 at 07:44 AM.
WDE46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2015, 08:03 AM   #2239
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 173
My Ride: 2013 F30 335i
Very enlightened response.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2015, 08:06 AM   #2240
bagher
Account closed.
 
bagher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 17,917
Send a message via AIM to bagher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
I'm not even saying man has no impact on the environment or that AGW theory is 100% wrong.
If man has an impact on the environment, shouldn't we be doing what we can to minimize or reverse the impact?
bagher 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 07:35 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.