Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner

Headlines!

7K views 83 replies 21 participants last post by  HAP 
#1 ·
Drudge Report: "Climate Scientists to be grilled by congressional investigators ...."

Oh, yummy! Grilled climate scientists. I wonder if they're gonna have A-1 Sauce. I love A-1 sauce!
 
#2 ·
I wonder if they'll use charcoal or gas. It changes the flavor, so that's important.
 
#5 ·
Easy there GPL. MHS didn't endorse gas over charcoal, he just pointed out that there is a difference in flavor. I think we can all agree that when it comes to grilling, charcoal is King. Although, we may need Congress to decide for us which has the smaller carbon footprint, because - you know - they're all so damn smart.
 
#9 ·
Glutten-free? Not when you're talking about DC.

And thanks for having my back there Jack. :wink2:

OTOH, the hot air method might be the most accurate way, right?
 
#15 ·
I officially blame you for the beer that I just now had to go pour. Darn you to heck sir. :wink2:
 
#12 ·
Back to the topic, the said scientists should be able to put off the flames (be it either charcoal or gas) using the water backing up on Miami's streets from rising water levels.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article41416653.html

Sorry if I hurt any climate change denier sensibilities, but data is data, as opposed to just an opinion. Unless of course you live- ironically perhaps- in Florida, where imbeciles banned "climate change" to be mentioned in public discourse (if you are sane enough to find this hard to believe, read it about it here)

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html#!
 
#18 · (Edited)
This silly argument has gone on for years with both sides dug in.
As a skeptic I see the quest for money on both sides driving an argument that with out money involved would cause sane folk to look at changing weather patterns and figure out ways to live through it.
Gore stood to make billions from cap and trade (trading dollars for creating the same pollution, enriching those who keep track). Australia thought of killing all their camels to stop methane, collages and universities vying for grant money from the doom sayers and the supposed polluters creating a split in the scientific world.
The best one is trying to fine supposed deniers. What if they are right. Next best is the inability of officials to stop building high rises next to oceans they claim will flood. We can go on and on about how stupid each side is yet no one proposes moving folk in land, spending money on ways to adjust, adapt, survive any climate change.
History is full of example of entire cultures lost to world climate changes. Dead, moved on, spread thin be a useful of climate change in yet mankind has survived. Every one here chanting death to deniers rides/drives an internal combustion bike,car or they drive one of the most environmentally damaging types of transport, electric battery-powered vehichals. (Doubt it? Look up what it costs the environment to build and then dispose these things)
It would be more fun to argue ways to survive this climate change rather than picking a side, burying our heads in the sand and waiting for the drought, flood, fire to scotch our bottoms.
Still a silly, boring topic to bash one another over.
 
#25 ·
This silly argument has gone on for years with both sides dug in.
As a skeptic I see the quest for money on both sides driving an argument that with out money involved would cause sane folk to look at changing weather patterns and figure out ways to live through it.
Gore stood to make billions from cap and trade (trading dollars for creating the same pollution, enriching those who keep track).
I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense.

The reality is, the scientists who have researched climate change don't stand to make any money. But the energy companies have a vested interest in denial.
 
#29 ·
Negative results do not publish, that much is true. There is a strong pull to prove *something*, or you won't publish your work. You have to go to a pretty obscure low-grade journal before they'll print "I looked, but I didn't find anything" for you.

So, most definitely if you could prove that the earth wasn't warming, it would publish. There's no doubt about that. But you can't prove a negative like that. So ...



That said, of course the earth is warming. And we know why, despite what your favorite politician might tell you. It ain't rocket science :geezer






 
#33 ·
It is difficult for the public to know what to believe. This MIT scientist says
“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,”

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11...sed-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/

So when people say something is FACT, that might not actually be the case. I am by no means an expert and have no idea what I am talking about. Maybe this scientist is bonkers. Or maybe he speaks without an agenda. But what bothers me is the way people on one side if the argument are trying to shut down completely any discourse on the other side.

Conservation and anti pollution should be the focus.

And I don't see how A-1 effects climate change in the least. Maybe it produces methane? Or is it the break- down of red meat using stomach acid? I think I'll try to get a federal grant to study this unknown correlation to methane production.
 
#34 ·
This thread just goes to prove that some folks on either side refuse to believe there even is an alternate side.
As a kid growing up the hole in the ozone layer would get so big the solar winds would fry the earth. Then scientists decided we were creating an ice age. All in the name of pure science.
We are indeed under going some form of climate adjustment. Just like a million other climate adjustments over 4 billion years. Yet hatred of certain industries creates panic in some.
Yesterday the FDA approved GM Salmon. There will be some who will starve rather than eat that. Some scientists claim it is unhealthy to modify any food source.
Funny how much of our food has been modified.
Because any scientist says something you don't agree with doesn't make him a studge for your favorite hated industry or for your favorite cap and trade advocate.
 
#35 ·
But, if they don't agree with my personal view of anything...well, actually everything...hey have to be wrong. It's simple, really.

;)
 
#36 ·
No, there was no such consensus that we were cooling. A few had floated the hypothesis, but it was not widely accepted.

The ozone hole was a real issue, and it was dealt with. That's why certain freons and aerosol propellant gases were banned.

Very few scientists oppose GM foods. No credible research has ever shown it to be other than safe, as safe as any other food product.
 
#37 ·
A few had floated the hypothesis, but it was not widely accepted. (A few renowned scientists at that time)

The ozone hole was a real issue, and it was dealt with. That's why certain freons and aerosol propellant gases were banned. (still an ongoing concern today amongst renowned scientists)

Very few scientists oppose GM foods. No credible research has ever shown it to be other than safe, as safe as any other food product.
Owen, we just see research differently. Right now there is a huge movement within the EU to prohibit the sale of GM foods. In America it has become the fad to proclaim GM foods as dangerous. Fed by a few renowned scientists. All I can say over and over is there is always two sides two views two opinions amongst "experts" and renowned scientists on any subject.
Very similar to a religious argument.
 
#38 ·
Yes, there is such a movement. Driven by fear and hysteria, not science. And who are these "renowned scientists"? There is a petition floating around, asking scientists to sign it if they agree there isn't a consensus on GMO safety, and they tout the number, but the funny part is, it only has a little over 300 signatures, and not all of them actually work in the field!

No, an argument on science is not like one on religion. Religion is not based on verifiable facts, but beliefs. Show me the science.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html
http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/150120_signatories_no_consensus_lv.pdf
 
#40 ·
About time that got settled :doublethumb


I'm really not sure why folks are concerned about global warming. We'll lose some shoreline property, sure. We'll have more frequent and stronger storms, that's not great.

Biomes will move, species will migrate north. We already have opossums and Cardinals up here. The polar bears may not have anywhere to migrate to, that's not great either. But we'll still have bears, so not a huge loss.

We'll run out of glaciers. Land covered by dirty ice. Who cares? My freezer makes enough ice for my drinks, that's all that anyone should need.

But the gain of global warming is huge! It is nothing less than the end of world hunger. Heat = energy. Energy = food. The tropical forests are full of vegetation and stuff to eat. The great frozen north has ... lichens :ThrowUp Soon enough we'll be growing corn and stuff up on the Yukon, enough to feed the rest of the world.

Change is hard and scary. There will be an adjustment period. But in the end ... oh glorious global warming and the 12-month Wisconsin riding season. I'm psyched :D
 
#43 ·
And where do we put the people that are displaced? That's already happening; two small Pacific Island nations literally no longer exist. And you may love all that extra energy, but California isn't, these days. Drought. And speaking of energy, it also means more and more powerful storms. Not good.
 
#42 ·
Well, actually your comment reflects a serious problem of our time. "Science" is not a fact that can be proven or disproven, and the mere claim that something is "science," or "scientific" doesn't make that something true. Science is an activity encompassing observation and experiment and the formulation of hypothesis, sometimes referred to as "the scientific method." Like any human activity, science can be done well, or poorly, honestly or corruptly, sincerely or disingenuously, etc. Beware of those who would slap on a white lab coat and waive a microscope around claiming to be the voice of truth. Just remember, snake oil cures were very "scientific" in their day. Just because one hears from a "scientist" is no reason to accept what's presented as being true.
 
#45 ·
Well, there is a difference between an individual scientist and the discipline of science with it's systems and process.

I suppose it is possible that the congressmen that want to interview the scientist have a better grip on the evidence, logic and conclusions regarding climate change than the scientists do. But I actually think the politicians are willing to say whatever they think serves them best, evidence and logic be damned. And the dismissive TV/radio personalities are a big step down from even them.
 
#46 ·
Climate change happens constantly. Shouldn't mean we simply point fingers at each other telling one another how stupid we are for our beliefs as to why. If we were serious we would be planning how to live with it. Moving folks off the coast, recycling all rain waters inland and planning food crops that will survive.
Same climate events started the decline of Incas with drought, Anastazi Indians of Colo.ceased to exist because of climate change. Non of the terrible energy companies we have come to hate existed then nor grant driven scientist to point the finger.
People adapted. We don't seem able to plan any thing other than using an as yet unproven energy source to some how reverse the climate change now upon us.
I don't doubt it is changing, just the folks creating the models used to get more grant funds. Garbage in, garbage out.
I probably am stupid as I just don't understand cap and trade saving any of us peons just all the ones making money off the sham who buy a mountain ranch in Wyoming.
 
#47 ·
If we were serious we would be planning how to live with it.
Heck folks won't even carpool over it. I figure people talk about it a ton more than they actually care. :dunno


I pulled the emissions controls off my bike and ride it around endlessly, for no particular reason at all. Just spew emissions all day long cause I don't have anything better to do. I don't seem to care much. Seriously.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top