I think that Carlin meant every word he said. The stoned tree hugging days of saving the planet is long gone. We are but mortals on a planet that has plans.
I think that Carlin meant every word he said. The stoned tree hugging days of saving the planet is long gone. We are but mortals on a planet that has plans.
That's what I always loved about him - his honesty, PC be damned. Even when I was perching on another branch. He's common-sensical.
In ways, he reminds me of Dennis Miller.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,457
Of course Carlin always meant what he said. He worked hard at his craft. The same with climate scientists, marine biologists, ecological and environmental scientists, etc.
"stoned tree hugging day"... Haha! Now you see why I don't celebrate "Earth Day".
The key to good science is verifiable data and reproducible results. Hopefully after this study we will have more reliable data so that we might better interpret the results
The key to good science is verifiable data and reproducible results. Hopefully after this study we will have more reliable data so that we might better interpret the results
The key to good science is verifiable data and reproducible results. Hopefully after this study we will have more reliable data so that we might better interpret the results
These kinds of claims by highly paid science deniers working for big oil come up on a fairly regular basis.
Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find. The data clearly has some issues right now. You should not be afraid to find out why.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,457
The key to good science is verifiable data and reproducible results. Hopefully after this study we will have more reliable data so that we might better interpret the results
These kinds of claims by highly paid science deniers working for big oil come up on a fairly regular basis.
Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find. The data clearly has some issues right now. You should not be afraid to find out why.
"Science deniers"? Oh man, BS, you certainly are relentless, haha!
Have you read any of the tons of information I've posted from realclimate.org, ucsusa.org, 350.org etc.? Look into who these people are and what their qualifications are. They are non-partisan scientists who are fanatical about one thing: SCIENCE! They don't work for big oil or other corporations that have a lot to lose when global warming is finally recognized in their tiny corner. Nothing has changed. The mis-information coming from corporations is the same and the people they hire are a very small and well paid off percentage of the qualified world science community. Why do you insist on listening to those who are paid off to support climate deniers? Does it make you feel more secure? Does it make you feel less guilty about using more plastic and petroleum? Or do you just enjoy the debate? I'm serious. I don't get it.
Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find. The data clearly has some issues right now. You should not be afraid to find out why.
The key to good science is verifiable data and reproducible results. Hopefully after this study we will have more reliable data so that we might better interpret the results
These kinds of claims by highly paid science deniers working for big oil come up on a fairly regular basis.
Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find. The data clearly has some issues right now. You should not be afraid to find out why.
"Science deniers"? Oh man, BS, you certainly are relentless, haha!
Have you read any of the tons of information I've posted from realclimate.org, ucsusa.org, 350.org etc.? Look into who these people are and what their qualifications are. They are non-partisan scientists who are fanatical about one thing: SCIENCE! They don't work for big oil or other corporations that have a lot to lose when global warming is finally recognized in their tiny corner. Nothing has changed. The mis-information coming from corporations is the same and the people they hire are a very small and well paid off percentage of the qualified world science community. Why do you insist on listening to those who are paid off to support climate deniers? Does it make you feel more secure? Does it make you feel less guilty about using more plastic and petroleum? Or do you just enjoy the debate? I'm serious. I don't get it.
I have read a number of the things that you have posted but it doesn't change the actual fact that the science has evolved and the data is not lining up with earlier predictions. After all this time it has still not been explained. You posted a link that theorizes why it doesn't line up but that is not enough. I am a science guy. I have a master's of science in a different field. It doesn't even come close to making me an expert but it has trained me to think critically. Ten years ago I would have agreed with you on the certainty of man-made global warming but as the data changed so did my thinking. The environment is such a complex system and the more we study it the more we find how other variables affect the climate as well. As I have said before...this doesn't mean man has zero effect on climate. It might mean though the that significance of man's actions may not be as impactful when compared to these other variables. Not all skeptics are in the pockets of big oil. You should recognize that and be ok with an examination of data.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,457
Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find. The data clearly has some issues right now. You should not be afraid to find out why.
This quote wins an award. FEAR! Hilarious! :lol
I think someone is a bit unclear on what scientist do, haha? Sorry, BS, don't mean to laugh at you but really, think about it. They're SCIENTISTS!
Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find. The data clearly has some issues right now. You should not be afraid to find out why.
This quote wins an award. FEAR! Hilarious! :lol
I think someone is a bit unclear on what scientist do, haha? Sorry, BS, don't mean to laugh at you but really, think about it. They're SCIENTISTS!
Not understanding you here.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,457
Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find. The data clearly has some issues right now. You should not be afraid to find out why.
This quote wins an award. FEAR! Hilarious! :lol
I think someone is a bit unclear on what scientist do, haha? Sorry, BS, don't mean to laugh at you but really, think about it. They're SCIENTISTS!
Not understanding you here.
I'm referring the idea that "Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find." These are scientists. The vast majority of them don't base their research on emotions like fear. They are totally obsessed with trying to figure out WHAT IS. Fear just doesn't factor in. Have you ever met a scientist? They really are as I describe them. They just want to get the the bottom of things.
Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find. The data clearly has some issues right now. You should not be afraid to find out why.
This quote wins an award. FEAR! Hilarious! :lol
I think someone is a bit unclear on what scientist do, haha? Sorry, BS, don't mean to laugh at you but really, think about it. They're SCIENTISTS!
Not understanding you here.
I'm referring the idea that "Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find." These are scientists. The vast majority of them don't base their research on emotions like fear. They are totally obsessed with trying to figure out WHAT IS. Fear just doesn't factor in. Have you ever met a scientist? They really are as I describe them. They just want to get the the bottom of things.
Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find. The data clearly has some issues right now. You should not be afraid to find out why.
This quote wins an award. FEAR! Hilarious! :lol
I think someone is a bit unclear on what scientist do, haha? Sorry, BS, don't mean to laugh at you but really, think about it. They're SCIENTISTS!
Not understanding you here.
I'm referring the idea that "Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find." These are scientists. The vast majority of them don't base their research on emotions like fear. They are totally obsessed with trying to figure out WHAT IS. Fear just doesn't factor in. Have you ever met a scientist? They really are as I describe them. They just want to get the the bottom of things.
well, brian, to be honest, all scientists work for someone. or their work is subsidized by grants given them based on a hypothesis or theory. if all of a sudden that theory dries up, so does that funding.
I would say most scientists, whether you want to believe it or not, are in the pocket of someone or something. just depends on how deep.
I think maybe the mocking of someone who is having a clear, concise, and credible discussion, is not warranted.
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall after a very restful summer exploring the Great Canadian Wilderness and beaches, listening to Pearl Jam, Headstones, Watchmen, Queens of the Stone Age, and many others.
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
Only the fossil fuel industry threatens to censor scientific findings and reports…
Really, all of this questioning science that's suddenly trendy is just that, trendy. A clear, concise and credible discussion would actually not involve the idea that science can be debated by, ugh, non-science.
Only the fossil fuel industry threatens to censor scientific findings and reports…
Really, all of this questioning science that's suddenly trendy is just that, trendy. A clear, concise and credible discussion would actually not involve the idea that science can be debated by, ugh, non-science.
Gotta disagree. Just look at anything relating to GMOs and the food industry.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Only the fossil fuel industry threatens to censor scientific findings and reports…
Really, all of this questioning science that's suddenly trendy is just that, trendy. A clear, concise and credible discussion would actually not involve the idea that science can be debated by, ugh, non-science.
Gotta disagree. Just look at anything relating to GMOs and the food industry.
Edit: just realized that you were probably specifically referencing science relating to global warming
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Only the fossil fuel industry threatens to censor scientific findings and reports…
Really, all of this questioning science that's suddenly trendy is just that, trendy. A clear, concise and credible discussion would actually not involve the idea that science can be debated by, ugh, non-science.
Gotta disagree. Just look at anything relating to GMOs and the food industry.
Edit: just realized that you were probably specifically referencing science relating to global warming
I was, but your right! GMOs and the food industry as well. Did you see the article links in the Neil Young thread?
Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find. The data clearly has some issues right now. You should not be afraid to find out why.
This quote wins an award. FEAR! Hilarious! :lol
I think someone is a bit unclear on what scientist do, haha? Sorry, BS, don't mean to laugh at you but really, think about it. They're SCIENTISTS!
Not understanding you here.
I'm referring the idea that "Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find." These are scientists. The vast majority of them don't base their research on emotions like fear. They are totally obsessed with trying to figure out WHAT IS. Fear just doesn't factor in. Have you ever met a scientist? They really are as I describe them. They just want to get the the bottom of things.
well, brian, to be honest, all scientists work for someone. or their work is subsidized by grants given them based on a hypothesis or theory. if all of a sudden that theory dries up, so does that funding.
I would say most scientists, whether you want to believe it or not, are in the pocket of someone or something. just depends on how deep.
I think maybe the mocking of someone who is having a clear, concise, and credible discussion, is not warranted.
I don't find it as mocking. It is more of a dodge. There are a ton of scientists in countless industries and academia who are heavily invested in the current climate models. The data is not supporting these models anymore and we should want to know why. Those that suggest anyone who re-evaluates the data is "in the pocket of big oil" are in fact afraid of having their livelihood affected and are practicing a form of Scientific McCarthyism.
Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find. The data clearly has some issues right now. You should not be afraid to find out why.
This quote wins an award. FEAR! Hilarious! :lol
I think someone is a bit unclear on what scientist do, haha? Sorry, BS, don't mean to laugh at you but really, think about it. They're SCIENTISTS!
Not understanding you here.
I'm referring the idea that "Science deniers refuse to look at the data for fear of what they might find." These are scientists. The vast majority of them don't base their research on emotions like fear. They are totally obsessed with trying to figure out WHAT IS. Fear just doesn't factor in. Have you ever met a scientist? They really are as I describe them. They just want to get the the bottom of things.
well, brian, to be honest, all scientists work for someone. or their work is subsidized by grants given them based on a hypothesis or theory. if all of a sudden that theory dries up, so does that funding.
I would say most scientists, whether you want to believe it or not, are in the pocket of someone or something. just depends on how deep.
I think maybe the mocking of someone who is having a clear, concise, and credible discussion, is not warranted.
I don't find it as mocking. It is more of a dodge. There are a ton of scientists in countless industries and academia who are heavily invested in the current climate models. The data is not supporting these models anymore and we should want to know why. Those that suggest anyone who re-evaluates the data is "in the pocket of big oil" are in fact afraid of having their livelihood affected and are practicing a form of Scientific McCarthyism.
There were some earlier posts by him that i would call mocking. But either way, i agree with you. As long as it is supported by sound science, it should be thought of as welcoming dialogue. But i know brians position on this, and i am admittedly paraphrasing, that he says the science is sound, there is no room for debate, that we need to stop discussing and start acting. Which is fair, as we are either in dire straights because of man, in dire straights be ause of nature, but any way you slice it, the storm is coming.
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall after a very restful summer exploring the Great Canadian Wilderness and beaches, listening to Pearl Jam, Headstones, Watchmen, Queens of the Stone Age, and many others.
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
There is a lot of science in there outlining the controversies. Very rational.
There is no such academia by the name of wattsupwiththat University...
Oh come now, bsL, you and I know that any science related web site that features hot babes with their legs up on a car's steering wheel and articles on budget friendly puppy dogs are VERY LIKELY to be filled with excellent scientific data of the highest quality!
There is a lot of science in there outlining the controversies. Very rational.
There is no such academia by the name of wattsupwiththat University...
Oh come now, bsL, you and I know that any science related web site that features hot babes with their legs up on a car's steering wheel and articles on budget friendly puppy dogs are VERY LIKELY to be filled with excellent scientific data of the highest quality!
Keep dodging the data boys.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,457
There is a lot of science in there outlining the controversies. Very rational.
There is no such academia by the name of wattsupwiththat University...
Oh come now, bsL, you and I know that any science related web site that features hot babes with their legs up on a car's steering wheel and articles on budget friendly puppy dogs are VERY LIKELY to be filled with excellent scientific data of the highest quality!
Keep dodging the data boys.
I was kidding, BS.
Not dodging the data at all. In fact, today is the first day of the free climate change course. Did you sign up for it?
Comments
The stoned tree hugging days of saving the planet is long gone.
We are but mortals on a planet that has plans.
In ways, he reminds me of Dennis Miller.
"stoned tree hugging day"... Haha! Now you see why I don't celebrate "Earth Day".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3055646/Did-exaggerated-records-make-global-warming-look-worse-Scientists-investigate-adjusted-temperatures-skewed-data.html
These kinds of claims by highly paid science deniers working for big oil come up on a fairly regular basis.
Have you read any of the tons of information I've posted from realclimate.org, ucsusa.org, 350.org etc.? Look into who these people are and what their qualifications are. They are non-partisan scientists who are fanatical about one thing: SCIENCE! They don't work for big oil or other corporations that have a lot to lose when global warming is finally recognized in their tiny corner. Nothing has changed. The mis-information coming from corporations is the same and the people they hire are a very small and well paid off percentage of the qualified world science community. Why do you insist on listening to those who are paid off to support climate deniers? Does it make you feel more secure? Does it make you feel less guilty about using more plastic and petroleum? Or do you just enjoy the debate? I'm serious. I don't get it.
I would say most scientists, whether you want to believe it or not, are in the pocket of someone or something. just depends on how deep.
I think maybe the mocking of someone who is having a clear, concise, and credible discussion, is not warranted.
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
@mrussel1 , @Go Beavers , @tbergs, @mickeyrat, @brianlux, @PJ_Soul, @The Juggler, @Gern Blansten
Really, all of this questioning science that's suddenly trendy is just that, trendy. A clear, concise and credible discussion would actually not involve the idea that science can be debated by, ugh, non-science.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/25/i-am-a-climate-skeptic-who-believes-in-global-warming/
There is a lot of science in there outlining the controversies. Very rational.
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
@mrussel1 , @Go Beavers , @tbergs, @mickeyrat, @brianlux, @PJ_Soul, @The Juggler, @Gern Blansten
Not dodging the data at all. In fact, today is the first day of the free climate change course. Did you sign up for it?