I was just thinking how ironic it would be if the climate deniers...

[Juror No. 8]

There are, however, a different kind of professionals called scientists who are bound by experiment and data to corroborate their ideas...

LOL, True Believer talk.

"But, but, but... it's true! Every profession on the planet is susceptible to corruption except for science-based professions, specifically climatologists! Scientists never lie! Scientists never sign onto something just to make a buck! Scientists never sell their opinion to the highest bidder! Never ever! How do I know this? Because it's true, that's how! It just is! I don't need any evidence for my belief in scientists as end-all-be-all paragon of honesty and virtue! It's just true! Scientists should be politicians because I can't help but believe everything they say!"

LOL, such a dumb shit...

 

[glenn1]

lose because of the weather. Their anti government stance screwed them with Katrina and Isaac screwed their convention, then along comes Sandy, the deadly lady that reversed Romney's momentum and tipped the race to Obama. It's not nice to stick your head in the sand and let the Mother Nature blow your ass away. Time to take climate change seriously, no?

What's ironic is that the poor lose either way. If climate change exists and we do nothing then they'll drown due to rising seas. If we do what Moonbeam & Co want then we'll stop using fossil fuels, alternative energy sources won't be able to pick up the slack, prices go up, and poor people freeze to death. Sure, people like me might have to buy a sedan rather than SUV, but at least a lot of poor will no longer be on the roads or voting for progressive politicians.

 

[desy]

Yes, money does buy opinions

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/10/25/climate-of-doubt-money-buys-skepticism/

You’re thinking, how did they do this so easily? Well, apart from clever framing and messaging tactics used most notably by the tobacco industry and adapted to climate change disinformation, their success boils down to one thing: money. According to Coll, this money has bought for the oil, gas, and coal industries the services of “free enterprise” groups that are “run by economists, litigators, lawyers, and public policy specialists, people who specialized in getting a message out.”

The saying “money talks” must to be amended in this instance to “money yells lies over and over and over again at your face until you start believing them.” We aren’t talking about a few dollars here and there, but very large amounts of funding to sway public opinion. These “free market” organizations are like puppets being pulled by the strings of the fossil fuel industry, along with true believers carrying water for wealthy right-wing ideologue donors.

In the case of climate denial, money buys you voices in the room to overpower your opposition’s. It buys you a seat at the decision-making table and it buys people whose “skepticism” is up for sale. It buys you biased studies and even counterfeit ones designed to cloud the subject in manufactured doubt. It buys you politicians’ allegiances and clever marketing campaigns.

One thing that has remained consistent through this changing climate is the credibility of science. Ralph Cicerone, President at the National Academy of Sciences, added that, “scientists are trying to shoot it [science of climate change] down all the time, and for years and year and years nobody has been able to. So at some point you have to be able to say maybe it’s right.”

 

[Brigandier]

Let's stop talking about climate change and actually do something. Oh, and that doesn't mean one country's people taking an unfair cost onto their shoulders while the big players in the room are ignored.

Until the world gets the balls to step up to China and India carbon emissions will continue to skyrocket.

 

[desy]

That is the problem, man won't change certainly not on a global scale so even while the industrialized world is scaling back emissions the rest of the world is willing to burn it all to survive.

I don't think there is anything to do other than try to mitigate the end results and try to figure out how it will manifest itself so we can plan cities in at risk areas, to create building code etc.

 

[werepossum]

That is the problem, man won't change certainly not on a global scale so even while the industrialized world is scaling back emissions the rest of the world is willing to burn it all to survive.

I don't think there is anything to do other than try to mitigate the end results and try to figure out how it will manifest itself so we can plan cities in at risk areas, to create building code etc.

I'm a climate change skeptic but I'd love to see direct carbon sequestration in a usable form to fight the marine and aquatic acidification from increased atmospheric CO2. Want to get as rich as the queen? Develop a way to take atmospheric or marine carbon and turn it to carbon fiber or graphite or any other useful product which renders it unavailable to the atmosphere.

 

[a777pilot]

Time to take climate change seriously, no?

That's right, NO.

We study, learn, plan and react to the chances in the world's weather patterns. We do not have the ability to change the weather no matter how much we want to.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Yes, money does buy opinions

What about government money? Does government money buy opinions too? If so, how much government money is being funneled into climate science in both Europe and North America? How many billions of dollars over the last two decades? Would it be enough to buy the opinions of a lot of "scientists"?

"But, but, but... that's different! Government money goes to honest scientists, while corporate money goes to dishonest scientists! The scientists that work for the government are all honest! None of them are out to make a buck! The science on my side is immune to corruption, but the science of the opposition isn't! Yeah! It's true! I don't know how, but it is!"

 

[shira]

No he doesn't. We were over-due for a storm like that and it's meaningless in the context of AGW. I think it's funny to see people support silly statements like this just because the person stating them has the same political leanings as themselves.

The very fact you use phrasing like what I've bolded above shows true ignorance of statistics. If you flip a fair coin 5 times and it comes up tails every time, you're not "overdue" for a head - the odds of a tail are still 1 in 2. Similarly, if a storm like Sandy occurs - on average - every 50 years and no storm like Sandy has occurred for the past 50 years, the odds of a storm like Sandy occurring THIS year are pretty much the same as if a storm like Sandy occurred two years ago (I say "pretty much" only because the existence of such a storm two years earlier my indicate a change in global weather patterns that might influence the odds of another Sandy).

 

[Moonbeam]

What about government money? Does government money buy opinions too? If so, how much government money is being funneled into climate science in both Europe and North America? How many billions of dollars over the last two decades? Would it be enough to buy the opinions of a lot of "scientists"?

"But, but, but... that's different! Government money goes to honest scientists, while corporate money goes to dishonest scientists! The scientists that work for the government are all honest! None of them are out to make a buck! The science on my side is immune to corruption, but the science of the opposition isn't! Yeah! It's true! I don't know how, but it is!"

I know. Every time I sit down at my computer I think of all the government money that went into developing it that could have been better spent on the abacus. Government funded research is just so so unfair. And then there's DARPA funding research into novel weapons like killing whole armies with sound, popping thousands of conservative heads rapidly from their asses.

 

[ericlp]

LOL, the "professionals" also said there were WMDs in Iraq. Did you believe they were telling the truth? Because they are "professionals"? LOL.

You must be a used car salesman's wet dream.

"But, but, but... I got a good deal on that old jalopy! The professional salesman said so!"

LOL!

Depends who your "professional" was. If it was Gorge W Bush, than...Yeah, what the fuck were you doing listening to a moron?

Were you born under a rock? Everyone was saying there were NO WMD's, but Bush went in anyway.... Maybe you got it confused that every profession WMD inspector in Iraq couldn't find a single WMD.

 

[DominionSeraph]

It's totally amazing to me that there are people out there that think Sandy was the result of human influence. I buried my mother nearly one year ago. She lived her life in fear.

Nobody cares.
Don't put your family's history of mental illness (which apparently did not skip a generation) on the rest of the world. Instead, seek professional help for your paranoia and stop boring us with your nonsense delusions.

 

[Matt1970]

I love it when conservative try to do science. I would argue with you but not only is it totally useless since you can't think, but also because I can't either right now because I'm laughing too hard.

Any time you want to argue ANYTHING with me, you let me know.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Any time you want to argue ANYTHING with me, you let me know.

The only barrier you pose is that you are too stupid to comprehend how stupid you are. That's not the type of challenge that most people are seeking.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

The very fact you use phrasing like what I've bolded above shows true ignorance of statistics. If you flip a fair coin 5 times and it comes up tails every time, you're not "overdue" for a head - the odds of a tail are still 1 in 2. Similarly, if a storm like Sandy occurs - on average - every 50 years and no storm like Sandy has occurred for the past 50 years, the odds of a storm like Sandy occurring THIS year are pretty much the same as if a storm like Sandy occurred two years ago (I say "pretty much" only because the existence of such a storm two years earlier my indicate a change in global weather patterns that might influence the odds of another Sandy).

except weather isn't an independent event. today's weather is not independent of yesterday's. there's no coin or 8 sided dice that decides whether today is raining or sunny.

 

[Matt1970]

The only barrier you pose is that you are too stupid to comprehend how stupid you are. That's not the type of challenge that most people are seeking.

Whatever you have to tell yourself.....

 

[Paratus]

So for all you deniers herp a derping about how climate changed in the past, which it did by the way, how did the previous climate change effect Florida beach front communities, Houston suburbs, mega farms in Kansas?

You know the infrastructure that 300 million Americans and 7 Billion humans rely on. You know the business hundreds of thousand of republican jerb creators built and insured.

Don't worry I'm sure since the climate changed in the past nothing will happen this time. I'm mean none of our farms, cities, or homes were harmed when it happend 100,000 years ago, right?

 

[spittledip]

The only barrier you pose is that you are too stupid to comprehend how stupid you are. That's not the type of challenge that most people are seeking.

Whatever you have to tell yourself.....

Haha, DS is such a japanimation clown. I have never seen someone fight so hard to convince other people that he is intelligent, or at least more intelligent than they are. Very sad.

At any rate, I think one thing outside this whole debate is very telling- how such obvious things as conservation of our natural resources is still such a fight despite the already proven consequences of pollution and destruction of wildlife habitats and fresh water sources. No matter what one believes about Climate Change, we do need to keep pressing toward greater regulation of protection of the truly valuable things in this world- that being life and the sustaining of life. However, there is still push back. People still want to drill deep water oil wells. People still want to destroy hundreds of square miles of wilderness to run oil pipeline and build new cardboard-cheap housing. People still want to destroy mountains and poison water supplies to dig out coal. People still want to empower the very rich to keep making their money no matter what the cost.

No matter what, the human heart seems to want to embrace destruction, be it in the world around them, or the world inside them.

 

[tweaker2]

Thousand words and all that....

 

[DominionSeraph]

Haha, DS is such a japanimation clown. I have never seen someone fight so hard to convince other people that he is intelligent, or at least more intelligent than they are.

Convince? There is no support in my bare assertions. There is only a challenge, and I am still waiting for someone who can rise to it.
The clowns are the conservatards here, as none of them can come close.

 

[Paratus]

Convince? There is no support in my bare assertions. There is only a challenge, and I am still waiting for someone who can rise to it.
The clowns are the conservatards here, as none of them can come close.

Well you gotta understand math and science have a well known liberal bias. I mean math is why Romney's budget doesn't add up after all.

 

[chucky2]

Convince? There is no support in my bare assertions. There is only a challenge, and I am still waiting for someone who can rise to it.
The clowns are the conservatards here, as none of them can come close.

What was the challenge again?

 

[Jaskalas]

An Inconvenient Truth: Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies along Sandy’s Track Haven’t Warmed in 70+ Years

Data... data... data... the cultists had best run and hide now.

 

[DominionSeraph]

What was the challenge again?

To shoot me down. I'm waiting for someone who can put their method of forming beliefs up against mine and show theirs superior. But the jokers here can't even begin to express their methods. With no examination and no discrimination against bias, they take the first thing their brains shit out as holy writ, and expect the consistency with conservatard memes for which it was filtered on creation to somehow be a confirming check for both their belief and the Truth of Conservatardism.

That doesn't even come close to cutting it.

 

[NetGuySC]

I thought it was global warming, now is it called climate change??