Wow...
You approve of such underhanded actions.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me.
How liberal are you with risk?
Some of the abstracts you should be reading have to do with how poorly people factor risk, and plan for the long term.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...term-decisions
Serious question:
If humans are bad at assessing long term risk simply because that is the way our brains are wired (we tremendously underestimate/discount future risk), shouldn't we tend to look a bit longer and harder at such things?
That is the nature of human society itself.
If skeptics had the academic credentials to get the grants, that would be fine.
Do you want to give money to unqualified hacks?
There is no risk.
Do you also have an imaginary friend?
Yes.
You advocate paying money now to stop a possible problem. If there was any possibility that the problem would manifest itself as the alarmists claim, I would agree with you. problem is, there is no future problem with CO2 emissions. There are problems with aerosol pollutants, but not CO2.
You are fighting the wrong fight.
Now you aren't arguing a profit point of $100 now vs. $120 later.
You are arguing we put ourselves in deeper debt, that will double every seven years or so, possibly bankrupting our children's future, for a problem that will never happen!
Climate change is following the low end of the lowest assessment estimates. Alarmists use the extreme end, which history since they started these doomsday scenarios, has never seen temperatures come close to those trends.
You are a total idiot for not seeing the reality of fact.
LOL...
There are plenty of skeptics that are credentialed, and have had papers published. The problem is, 98+ percent of the mony is only funding research in opposition to what they wish to research.
Follow the money! 98%+ of it is politically and alarmist driven do the politicians can hold more control over the people. Less that 1% of the finding is from the Kochs, Exxon, etc.
Not really what I asked.
I asked how liberal you are with risk generally.
I do not. Not sure how this is relevant, nor helpful.
I shown much of your thinking on the topic here, and elsewhere, to be logically flawed.
Your problem is that you have assigned a "zero" to the risk that a complicated system that no one fully understands will be adversely affected by indefinitely increasing concentrations of a greenhouse gas.If there was any possibility that the problem would manifest itself as the alarmists claim, I would agree with you. problem is, there is no future problem with CO2 emissions.
You say this despite people with more education and work in the area directly contradicting you, because you think you know better.
Let's set this part of your flawed thinking aside for a moment.
How do you know how much it will cost to mitigate CO2 emissions?
Its a conspiracy against the idea.
From the OP that started this whole thread.
Please prove 98% of the money is only funding research in opposition to the skeptics.From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the le of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.
Your claim, your burden of proof. Show me the vast conspiracy to fake the moon land-... er fake climate science.
The numbers have been shown in the past. I'm not going to look it up. I don't care if you believe the facts or not. If you care for the truth, you can find the supporting material. I trust if i took the time to find it, you would just rationalize it away anyway.
Just look at how many papers there are on one side vs. the other. It takes funding for a researcher to make a paper to be published.
Very few scientists contradict what I say. It's the spin by the pundits, bloggers, etc. that contradict what I say.
I've seen numbers before. It's too costly for the very small mitigation in temperature it brings. We would be wiser to spend the same money making people plant grass on their roofs. And... that's not necessarily very wise...
Land use is one of the largest impacts of AGW. We have covered urban and suburban areas with concrete, asphalt, and building. We have radically changes the transpiration of moisture. We have radically changed how black body radiation works in such areas.
Aerosols change the optical density of the atmosphere, and melts snow and ice faster when it settles there.
CO2 has a very small forcing change with changing CO2 levels. yes, it changes, but not very significantly.
Well, an imaginary friend would explain your mindset and explain why you believe what charlatans say.
Risk in general?
It depends on the nature of the risk. I don't do anything that could be as dangerous as you perceive lack of action might be in this area. My perception is different.
Again, spend the money addressing land use changes and aerosols. Stop worrying about CO2.
A dodge?
You are willing to make the claim, but not back it up. Got it.
If you can't back it up, it isn't a fact.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
The exact same things can be said about any quack theory, like essential oils, dangers of vaccines and so forth. "they just won't publish papers supporting it".
How then, am I to tell the difference between your "CO2 is completely harmless and presents no risk" theory, and that of the people trying to tell me that essential oils will balance my electroconductivity and therefore make me healthier?
"I've seen numbers"
What numbers?
Where?
You want to claim there is harm from limiting CO2 emissions. Prove it.
I am not asking for the moon, just to see the evidence that you use to support your position. If it is good enough, I might even agree with you or evaluate my own position.
Unless you have no evidence to support that?
Do charlatans insist on someone believing them without good evidence?
"I've seen the numbers on how good this orgone generator is for your health".
Alberta sand fields are ridicolous... didn't realize that area is so extensive.
They have not been shown. You've been asked for proof for years and you come with this. Your dumb ass is easy to discount at this point.
If you say so.
As if anyone believes your sorry ass...
You know that I don't ask people to take what I say on faith. I always back up what I say with facts and logic independently of myself. Nullius en verba.
Meanwhile... deep in the Cobra Cave:
.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-25-2016 at 01:23 PM. Reason: double post
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
