The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Miscellaneous / Climate Change
|Subject: Re: Sad, really...||Date: 2/13/2013 7:57 AM|
|Author: bjchip||Number: 40842 of 59054|
You mistake yourself for someone who actually knows what is happening to the planet mate. I haven't seen many words crammed into so little reality since I read Lord of the Rings.
BTW I ALSO went to SUNY Stony Brook for my Mechanical Degree - 1983. But got my CS Masters at NYIT and went on to NASA JPL.
Now I don't give a sh** about what Soros says or Gore does or Thatcher imagines. They aren't involved in the science and they don't know anything worth learning.
The IPCC decides which data can and cannot be submitted into the models.
Do you have ANY idea just how untrue this is? You are seriously lying to yourself.
such as all the black roofs they put down in the seventies to save us from global cooling
Uh... no. That was not something that happened in the seventies. I wonder where you even got this idea from.
Nor is the UHI effect that you reference
where no so coincidentally many of the T measurements are taken
You really do not have anything but a lot of mistakes tied together in a huge knot of self-deception here.
Booker is a clown prince of denial, he hasn't a CLEW what is happening scientifically and I am not so enamored of the judgement of Maggie Thatcher as to defer to it on the topic based on Booker's opinions. I understand it better than either of them. Which leads to the question...
Do YOU understand the SCIENCE of this problem? You're very fast to draw politics of every persuasion into your rants.
Do you understand the science?
Is there something wrong with the science that you know about? Mind you that people with advanced degrees have been trying to poke holes in it for 2 decades now, with such a comprehensive lack of success that it is in scientific terms, all over bar the fine details and refinement.
Finally, the arguments over subsidies are internecine warfare between people who are too old to be spanked for their greed. The correct approach, denied us for the past 2 decades by ignoranti like Inhofe and other of his ilk, is a pigovian CO2 tax. Not subsidies in which government "picks winners".
But we can't have THAT. That would be an admission that BAU can't actually continue as usual. That would force business models to change and the people CURRENTLY exercising power like Koch and Pickens and Exxon ... would have to compete in an altered market and might not make out so well. They fight the truth the same way the Cigarette Companies fought it... for the same reasons.
Your actual arguments are about politics. Chief among them a tacit assertion about scientists altering the data (for either money or politics). You palmed that card well, but you can't logically reach some of the conclusions you did without it. It is untrue. Moreover, it is seriously difficult to even imagine...
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|