Do Emissions Cause Tornadoes? Climate Service Would Know..GOP Blocks Research

[xBiffx]

The wind that funnels through your ears?

Someone needs a dictionary. Key word: emission.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just as long as you don't have any differing opinions that him, then he thinks you have a brain defect.

See, this is just what I mean. I don't have any opinions on global warming other that that I trust a consensus of scientists. Don't know what the consensus is here. I'm just referring to other science elsewhere that points to a brain defect, several in fact, in the brains of conservative thinkers that make it impossible for them to reason. You take the fact that you have a brain disorder as if it were some evil I'm ascribing to you, but it's just a defect that prevents you from reasoning properly. Now you might just as well tell me I hate you if you believe you can fly if I told you you can't. I don't tell you you can't fly because I hate you or want you to feel bad. I tell you so you won't jump off a roof, especially when I'm under you on the ground.

You have a brain defect and I just suggest you don't believe anything YOU call reason. It won't be just like you got it all wrong here.

So I'm just trying to warn my liberal friends here not to go crazy trying to make conservatives understand. They can't and it's not their fault, they have defective thinking. It's like saying if you turn on the sprinkler and stand on the grass, you're going to get wet.

What happened to the global warming issue is that it became political and then emotional as folk got their egotistical opinions involved. I didn't do that. I am not a climate scientist so I don't have the knowledge to arrive at some independent opinion. And now, thanks to the shit throwing ape conservatives, sent out by the oil rich to protect their profit stream, the liberals and scientists are now also pissed off. Science gets fucked when conservatives get involved. They don't know anything and insist that they are always right about everything, immodest little bastards, and scientists are driven right off the rails.

Poor humanity is caught in a catch 22. We use reason to determine the truth and the pecker heads, in their delusions they can reason too, start up with their phony rebuttals which they will never be talked out of, and the world of reason becomes a circus. Parents don't let their kids tell them what reason is, so similarly, there's no place for conservatives at the science table.

 

[Matt1970]

See, this is just what I mean. I don't have any opinions on global warming other that that I trust a consensus of scientists. Don't know what the consensus is here. I'm just referring to other science elsewhere that points to a brain defect, several in fact, in the brains of conservative thinkers that make it impossible for them to reason. You take the fact that you have a brain disorder as if it were some evil I'm ascribing to you, but it's just a defect that prevents you from reasoning properly. Now you might just as well tell me I hate you if you believe you can fly if I told you you can't. I don't tell you you can't fly because I hate you or want you to feel bad. I tell you so you won't jump off a roof, especially when I'm under you on the ground.

You have a brain defect and I just suggest you don't believe anything YOU call reason. It won't be just like you got it all wrong here.

So I'm just trying to warn my liberal friends here not to go crazy trying to make conservatives understand. They can't and it's not their fault, they have defective thinking. It's like saying if you turn on the sprinkler and stand on the grass, you're going to get wet.

What happened to the global warming issue is that it became political and then emotional as folk got their egotistical opinions involved. I didn't do that. I am not a climate scientist so I don't have the knowledge to arrive at some independent opinion. And now, thanks to the shit throwing ape conservatives, sent out by the oil rich to protect their profit stream, the liberals and scientists are now also pissed off. Science gets fucked when conservatives get involved. They don't know anything and insist that they are always right about everything, immodest little bastards, and scientists are driven right off the rails.

Poor humanity is caught in a catch 22. We use reason to determine the truth and the pecker heads, in their delusions they can reason too, start up with their phony rebuttals which they will never be talked out of, and the world of reason becomes a circus. Parents don't let their kids tell them what reason is, so similarly, there's no place for conservatives at the science table.

Did you play a lot of football without a helmet?

 

[Moonbeam]

...you know there might be something to that.

And to be utterly honest, I've (sadly) heard of crazier things that taxpayer money has been thrown at.

It's fortunate that you are impregnable behind your conservative brain defect because this is one of the most absurd things that any human being could pretend is thinking. Huge portions of our GDP are the serendipitous results of the most far fetched ideas. Some imbecile got curious about cathode rays and now we have the computer.

 

[Matt1970]

It's fortunate that you are impregnable behind your conservative brain defect because this is one of the most absurd things that any human being could pretend is thinking. Huge portions of our GDP are the serendipitous results of the most far fetched ideas. Some imbecile got curious about cathode rays and now we have the computer.

Great, except cathode rays were discovered in Germany and eventually used in the vacuum tubes. Vacuum tubes were not the first computers.

 

[Sunburn74]

It's fortunate that you are impregnable behind your conservative brain defect because this is one of the most absurd things that any human being could pretend is thinking. Huge portions of our GDP are the serendipitous results of the most far fetched ideas. Some imbecile got curious about cathode rays and now we have the computer.

True, but the question is did tax payer dollars lead to those far fetched ideas reaching fruition? Or did those ideas reach fruition for other reasons (ie outside funding, private funding) and then tax payer dollars snatched them up.

In the 50s it used to be that way. Nowadays its not. I'll cite an example. In the 50s most agricultural research was done at Universities with government grants. Nowadays, most agricultural research is done by private industry with private R&D. Its not that way with every field (medicine is still highly university based), but with a lot of fields it is (engineering comes to mind as being largely private based R&D).

 

[Moonbeam]

Great, except cathode rays were discovered in Germany and eventually used in the vacuum tubes. Vacuum tubes were not the first computers.

Wonderful, I wasn't talking about the abacus:
---------------
The first digital computer

Short for Atanasoff-Berry Computer, the ABC started being developed by Professor John Vincent Atanasoff and graduate student Cliff Berry in 1937 and continued to be developed until 1942 at the Iowa State College (now Iowa State University). The ABC was an electrical computer that used vacuum tubes for digital computation including binary math and Boolean logic and had no CPU. On October 19, 1973, the US Federal Judge Earl R. Larson signed his decision that the ENIAC patent by Eckert and Mauchly was invalid and named Atanasoff the inventor of the electronic digital computer.

The ENIAC was invented by J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly at the University of Pennsylvania and began construction in 1943 and was not completed until 1946. It occupied about 1,800 square feet and used about 18,000 vacuum tubes, weighing almost 50 tons. Although the Judge ruled that the ABC computer was the first digital computer, many still consider the ENIAC to be the first digital computer because it was fully functional.
----------------

Furthermore, I mentioned the investigation of the cathode ray because the investigation required a third element in the tube and that was where the transistor came from. That led to solid state transistors and the computer chip. But remember you have a mental defect and no matter what I say you will deflect it away.

True, but the question is did tax payer dollars lead to those far fetched ideas reaching fruition? Or did those ideas reach fruition for other reasons (ie outside funding, private funding) and then tax payer dollars snatched them up.

In the 50s it used to be that way. Nowadays its not. I'll cite an example. In the 50s most agricultural research was done at Universities with government grants. Nowadays, most agricultural research is done by private industry with private R&D. Its not that way with every field (medicine is still highly university based), but with a lot of fields it is (engineering comes to mind as being largely private based R&D).

Look up what the word serendipity means for fuck sakes. Serendipity happens all over the place no matter who is paying. The bigger the government investment the more serendipity there will be. You have been infected by brain dead notion that government spending is bad. You can't think beyond your program. But no robot is to blame for being programmed. You and the robot are a tool.

 

[cybrsage]

 

[Sunburn74]

Serendipity happens all over the place no matter who is paying. The bigger the government investment the more serendipity there will be. You have been infected by brain dead notion that government spending is bad. You can't think beyond your program. But no robot is to blame for being programmed. You and the robot are a tool.

Wow where is the personal attack coming from? You said that we spend a ton of money on stuff that developed out of the blue. I said, i agree, but it doesn't mean that a ton of TAXPAYER money was spent on making those events happen. Honestly capitalism alone should be enough to drive R&D, assuming you have fair market economics. The problem is we don't have fair market economics and certain fields simply will never be profitable enough to drive significant R&D on their own.

However, allow me to disagree with you some more.

1) Serendipity today simply doesn't happen all over the place as you so quaintly state. The fact of the matter is technology has just gotten so darned complex that the weekend garage inventor is something that has gone the way of the dinosaur. Instead such serendipity happens in controlled, goal directed environments where you have lots of money and lots of people working towards one goal.

2)I don't agree that there is a direct correlation with government spending and "more serendipity". There is more than just a cost barrier to overcome in innovation but also a knowledge barrier and the knowledge barrier is one that is least responsive to throwing dollars at it.

3) I very much believe in government spending for R&D. I would like to see the depart of defense have its R&D budget for one year completely frozen and put towards the development of alternative energy sources particularly nuclear power (breeder reactors), wave power, and off shore algae biofuel farms. Developing cheap energy is probably one of the highest impact fields our taxpayer dollars can go to. In fact, I don't believe anywhere in my post I indicated I was against research paid for by tax payers. All I stated was that today most R&D has moved out of taxpayer funded university laboratories into industry funded, private laboratories.

 

[Matt1970]

Wonderful, I wasn't talking about the abacus:
---------------
The first digital computer

Short for Atanasoff-Berry Computer, the ABC started being developed by Professor John Vincent Atanasoff and graduate student Cliff Berry in 1937 and continued to be developed until 1942 at the Iowa State College (now Iowa State University). The ABC was an electrical computer that used vacuum tubes for digital computation including binary math and Boolean logic and had no CPU. On October 19, 1973, the US Federal Judge Earl R. Larson signed his decision that the ENIAC patent by Eckert and Mauchly was invalid and named Atanasoff the inventor of the electronic digital computer.

The ENIAC was invented by J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly at the University of Pennsylvania and began construction in 1943 and was not completed until 1946. It occupied about 1,800 square feet and used about 18,000 vacuum tubes, weighing almost 50 tons. Although the Judge ruled that the ABC computer was the first digital computer, many still consider the ENIAC to be the first digital computer because it was fully functional.
----------------

Furthermore, I mentioned the investigation of the cathode ray because the investigation required a third element in the tube and that was where the transistor came from. That led to solid state transistors and the computer chip. But remember you have a mental defect and no matter what I say you will deflect it away.



Look up what the word serendipity means for fuck sakes. Serendipity happens all over the place no matter who is paying. The bigger the government investment the more serendipity there will be. You have been infected by brain dead notion that government spending is bad. You can't think beyond your program. But no robot is to blame for being programmed. You and the robot are a tool.

LOL, I have a defect. Ok. You just said let the government spend all it can and hopefully by some "happy accident" we might get a new invention out of it. You have been infected by the notion that we can afford to keep spending at these levels.

 

[tydas]

So much ignorance in this thread...we are not knee deep in debt because some below salary scientist is actually interested in doing some research to better mankind...

in case you have not been following the news our debt is from...1. medicare 2. SSA 3. military..all the other stuff is trivial...and yeah, lets see china cut us off..who's going to buy their cheaply made crap?

 

[Moonbeam]

Wow where is the personal attack coming from? You said that we spend a ton of money on stuff that developed out of the blue. I said, i agree, but it doesn't mean that a ton of TAXPAYER money was spent on making those events happen. Honestly capitalism alone should be enough to drive R&D, assuming you have fair market economics. The problem is we don't have fair market economics and certain fields simply will never be profitable enough to drive significant R&D on their own.

However, allow me to disagree with you some more.

1) Serendipity today simply doesn't happen all over the place as you so quaintly state. The fact of the matter is technology has just gotten so darned complex that the weekend garage inventor is something that has gone the way of the dinosaur. Instead such serendipity happens in controlled, goal directed environments where you have lots of money and lots of people working towards one goal.

2)I don't agree that there is a direct correlation with government spending and "more serendipity". There is more than just a cost barrier to overcome in innovation but also a knowledge barrier and the knowledge barrier is one that is least responsive to throwing dollars at it.

3) I very much believe in government spending for R&D. I would like to see the depart of defense have its R&D budget for one year completely frozen and put towards the development of alternative energy sources particularly nuclear power (breeder reactors), wave power, and off shore algae biofuel farms. Developing cheap energy is probably one of the highest impact fields our taxpayer dollars can go to. In fact, I don't believe anywhere in my post I indicated I was against research paid for by tax payers. All I stated was that today most R&D has moved out of taxpayer funded university laboratories into industry funded, private laboratories.

See the difference between when people argue reasonably and from their heads instead of from their guts? Thanks. I simply disagree with some of your conclusions but like your overall thrust so I won't push further. I'll simply say that nobody can or will ever know where serendipity will come from and it's not, in my opinion, confined today just to large teams.

 

[Zebo]

My emissions cause ppl to roll down the windows. I guess you could call that a tornado if I'm driving 80mph.

 

[Moonbeam]

LOL, I have a defect. Ok. You just said let the government spend all it can and hopefully by some "happy accident" we might get a new invention out of it. You have been infected by the notion that we can afford to keep spending at these levels.

Now look at the total irrationality of this response. I just said that the more science is done the more basic discoveries will be made from which currently unknowable inventions and discoveries may result with unknown, but potentially revolutionary results for the human race, but nowhere in this idea is the indication that therefore the government should spend all its money on science. Priorities as to where to spend government monies are a totally different issue. The only issue, then, is that because conservatives are defective in their understanding of science and are full of irrational fears, they don't belong at any table where adults set government policy and spending priorities. Their brain defects cause them to arrive at dangerous and irrational conclusions based, not on science, but truthiness, a total fictitious and delusional knowledge base that exists in their tummies.

 

[Ninjahedge]

They got volunteers to do it? Sweet.

You really do not read, do you.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Grab your torches boys, some day severe weather might be as bad as it used to be! Then we'll certainly get to burn that evil CO2 witch!

You make it sound like living cleaner is like Frankenstein's monster.

Maybe we should just convert everyone's heat back to Coal.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Did you play a lot of football without a helmet?

Don't quote a huge post just for a snide comment.

 

[Moonbeam]

Don't quote a huge post just for a snide comment.

But without him quoting what I said, his post would have been totally worthless.

 

[shira]

You can't think of any reason we might not ought to be spending another pile of billion dollar bills for yet another propaganda tool right now? No reason at all? Personally I can think of roughly fifteen trillion reasons not to do this right now.

Besides, the left still claims almost daily that anthropogenic CO2 causes stronger hurricanes even though that's been pretty thoroughly debunked. Why can't you just skip the very expensive middle man and go directly to lying about it causing tornadoes too?

Reading is your friend:

In November, however, Republican members of the House of Representatives killed that plan, even though it would have required no new funding at all. The agency already collects and analyzes climate data, and publishes outlooks for events such as floods, wildfires and droughts, but the information is spread across various offices and is therefore not centrally coordinated.

The House members worry that a dedicated office might reinforce a reality they don’t recognize: that greenhouse-gas emissions are changing Earth’s climate.

Can't have science finding new truths that might undermine the right-wing party line, can we?

 

[Jaskalas]

You make it sound like living cleaner is like Frankenstein's monster.

Maybe we should just convert everyone's heat back to Coal.

There is NOTHING wrong with CO2.

If you want to stop pollution then deal with that, not the specter of bullshit that is man made tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. Drop CO2 from your vocabulary and we will find common ground to fight REAL pollution.

 

[shira]

From the "World may not be warming" thread, less than a week ago.:

We should continue to study, to learn, for another 10 to 20 years. Actually get to understand what does what, more fully understand the interactions between the various items and forces.

But I guess you wrote THAT statement before someone actually proposed that we try to determine "what does what."

Do you drool much when you talk out of both sides of your mouth?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

There is NOTHING wrong with CO2.

If you want to stop pollution then deal with that, not the specter of bullshit that is man made tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. Drop CO2 from your vocabulary and we will find common ground to fight REAL pollution.

Specter of bullshit?

They call them greenhouse gases for a reason sir.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Reading is your friend:



Can't have science finding new truths that might undermine the right-wing party line, can we?

Not worry shira, those massive scientific studies debunking the current climate change consensus are hidden right alongside all those missing WMDs.

 

[monovillage]

But without him quoting what I said, his post would have been totally worthless.

Hey Moonie, kind of OT, but I thought you might like this post in Curry's blog. If so I hope you enjoy it.

Well, we had a lot of fun with the Republican Brain. Here is another book with some similar themes, but one that isn’t partisan. Jonathan Haidt has written a book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. From the summary on amazon.com:

Why can’t our political leaders work together as threats loom and problems mount? Why do people so readily assume the worst about the motives of their fellow citizens? In The Righteous Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt explores the origins of our divisions and points the way forward to mutual understanding.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/19/the-righteous-mind/#more-7893

 

[Jaskalas]

Specter of bullshit?

They call them greenhouse gases for a reason sir.

Did you read the premise of the thread? Tornadoes.

Severe weather, which DECREASES when the poles warm up and a closer equilibrium with the tropics is established. The observed data already concurs with such physical logic. There are even some nutters who blamed CO2 for the Japanese earthquake and tsunami.