It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:55 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:09 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
Fucking. Please.

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
NYIntensity wrote:
I'm willing to bet that if I purchased land that had a river running through it, and I built a watermill (or some form of my own hydroelectric power), that the government would FINE me, if not send me to jail. Not sure why, but I'm pretty sure it would.


jeremy is right, he could easily be fined a lot of money. you'd need permits from the army corps of engineers, especially if it is considered a navigable waterway, because any river is certainly in the category called "waters of the US" which means it is federally owned (collectively by the people). in the east. access to a waterbody is restricted to owners, but the WATER cannot be controlled by anyone. any water of the us is public property no matter what, if you have access. so, i can float my canoe down a navigable waterway if i want, and as long as i don't touch bed or banks, i cannot be in trouble for trespassing (this IS affected by lawyers and money, like the moose river three in the early 90's...bogus court findings stuff, influenced heavily by money and stuff...makes me SICK).

NYIntensity wrote:
No offense taken...I would assume that:

1) They'd be concerned about the implications on wildlife (a cause that I would be able to understand), or
2) They'd be concerned that I wasn't paying a local electricity provider, or was in some way taking money "from" them, because its "their" river.

mostly a form of 1. they are much less concerned about money. see how easy it is to get personal solar and wind. it's more of an issue that you are modifying a resource that the entirety of the US owns and the habitat modification. most people don't understand how many animals have an incredibly tiny ecological niche.

NYIntensity wrote:
I didn't say solar because, well, as far as green technology goes, it's shit.

Quote:
but many Western states, including Utah, Washington and Colorado, have long outlawed individuals from collecting rainwater on their own properties because, according to officials, that rain belongs to someone else.

As bizarre as it sounds, laws restricting property owners from "diverting" water that falls on their own homes and land have been on the books for quite some time in many Western states. Only recently, as droughts and renewed interest in water conservation methods have become more common, have individuals and business owners started butting heads with law enforcement over the practice of collecting rainwater for personal use.

Salt Lake City officials worked out a compromise with Miller and are now permitting him to use "their" rainwater, but the fact that individuals like Miller don't actually own the rainwater that falls on their property is a true indicator of what little freedom we actually have here in the U.S. (Access to the rainwater that falls on your own property seems to be a basic right, wouldn't you agree?)

Personally, I don't think a study was even necessary to come to this obvious conclusion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that using rainwater instead of tap water is a smart and useful way to conserve this valuable resource, especially in areas like the West where drought is a major concern.

Additionally, the study revealed that only about three percent of Douglas County's precipitation ended up in the streams and rivers that are supposedly being robbed from by rainwater collectors. The other 97 percent either evaporated or seeped into the ground to be used by plants.


1st thing. you're calling solar shit and you're considering buying a water wheel? for the love of God, talk to me before you do anything like that. solar is not shit at all. some douchey companies make it shit. germany runs a ridiculously large percentage of their electicity off solar (they were leading the world in solar production, last I knew, with a solar resource that rivaled our worst state (alaska)). panels are warranted for 25 years in most cases, and after being "doped" (look up the process) they are easily 25% efficient in most cases and enough solar to power an average hours works out to around a dime per kilowatt/hour, not to mention there are no service charges.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... -cell2.htm

secondly, let me know if you want me to go more in depth with this water thing, but whoever wrote this article is FULL OF SHIT. they are some sort of useless hipster, hell bent on changing the world in converse and flannel, with nothing but the comfort of a PBR and crappy music. the majority of the rainwater in the dry states is regulated BECAUSE OF THE INFILTRATION into the ground. it's the aquifers that are the issue. 97% of that water is used to grow those plants or recharge the cyclical water system in the us (like the Ogallalla aquifer, one that has shrunk something like 30% in the last 30 years). i will go into this more if you want.
Image
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
I'd love to hear from Pat Green about this as well. My hunch is that he is an environmental scientist that may have a traditional energy company courting him based on the change in stance I've seen in his posting about fracking (HUGE amount of assumptions going on there on my part I know). But I think he may know more about the industry of environmental science than all of us combined. I'd be willing to bet that fossil fuel companies pay their scientists a shit ton more than the government or the green industry, and again, that editorial was about money influencing science.

i don't necessarily know what you're getting at here. i've never changed me stance on fracking. i hate it. i think it's stupid and that we're twisting a damp sponge to hold on to some semblance of the last hundred years and refusing to move forward. i am fair in my assessment as a professional about the practice and the benefits that fracking has (all socio economically). personally, as a conservationist, i hate it and it shouldn't be an option. i think you confuse my professional opinion with my personal opinion.

yes, i have been courted by shell, dominion, and now Occidental, but i will not be joining them. most of the environmental scientists staffed at these gas companies are bought and paid for because of the culture they are in. typically, they are just people who started off as pipeliners or something that get elevated to that position or someone with a lower degree in "environmental science" which is typically basic chemistry, biology, and some other things. they do not often have an extensive background in wildlife sciences or ecology, or even organic chemistry. you are correct about the pay discrepancies. as a consultant, my opinion is neutral and is not swayed by the client in any circumstance. i write habitat assessments and wetland/waterbody reports and impact assessments and biological evaluations, all of which are government read and responded to. i get paid less than $40k a year. An analogous person with a production company would get double that at minimum and be called an "engineer" or something stupid like that. they pay more because they do not often have unbiased or overall very qualified individuals in those positions. a lot of times most of their work is a reference for the stream and a name to attach to reports to establish a rapport with regulatory agencies. i have a couple clients who take all of my work and put their environmental person's name on the reports and stuff to submit. i have to be very careful with this and save the drafts of everything i write, because they could easily change it and make me look awful in the case of some issue. this reinforces your point. often times the client can try and persuade me to "miss" a stream in my surveys or to call a wetland a category 2 instead of a category 3 (high quality). i do not have to do that and there is no threat in me losing my job. I DO NOT CATER TO ANYONE BESIDES MY EXPERTISE. also those i trust that i consult with in tricky situations.


Squanto wrote:
Jeremy : Water rights have been a political football in the west since the area was initially settled. It's a really big stretch to say that because of that you couldn't put a water wheel on a river that you owned.

i'm not sure what this says. the water rights and regulations are not objective or anything. what's objective is when/how often they are enforced. the east follows the riparian doctrine, and any anthropogenic modification of a "water of the us" (channeling, daming, ditching, dredging) is illegal in any circumstance. fluvial dynamics and flow of a river will be changed by pretty much anything, including felling a tree to fall in a stream. the banks in front will widen and plunge and scour pools would likely form downstream, completely changing habitat within the waterbody. it takes very little to do a lot when moving water is involved. you wouldn't believe how fast erosion adds up.

in the west, rainwater is regulated as well as water use because it's more scarce, and when water is removed from an ecosystem, it doesn't just come back. in the east, we encourage rain barrels, rain gardens, and other things. out west, that water is much more precious and belongs to everyone equally. if they want to save water, they should buy a purifier and reuse it for things, like that car wash. it's very hard to explain the importance of groundwater recharge through infiltration and percolation of precipitation (that owuld be a bitchin' rap lyric) in a few short sentences. we are changing entire ecosystems out west though (think phoenix) through unnatural modification of water- there it's typically added.

Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
Irony, some conservatives may very well think that.

in my experience, i think you may be vastly underrating the percentages of people who outright say any human acceleration of climate change is hooey.

Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
Pat, I don't know what your job or lifestyle is, but why is it asinine to question how much effect humans have on global warming? To deny any causation at all might be asinine, but on the other hand the causation might be so insignificant that all the lobbying for green energy sources may be extrememly overblown. First, not knowing the human impact is a problem, then to have other countries get on board with green technologies is mostly a waste of time. China and Russia account for the majority of carbon emissions and won't do a damn thing that might reduce their economic viability. That means any effort the US or any other country makes is miniscule or even nullified.

i am an ecologist. i have done research on bats and wns and the effects of anthropogenic encroachment and modification of habitat on them. i am currently an environmental consultant. i write permit applications and reports that allow new pipelines to be installed or buildings to be built. i think you mis read what i wrote, because you rephrased what i said in bold above. arguing it is insignificant is kinda lame, because you're assuming that everyone has the same definition of insignificant. you might dump your old oil in the pit behind your house because it's insignificant. i might spray WD-40 on my fishing hooks because trout bite better and call the addition of chemicals in the stream insignificant. someone thought the PCBs being dumped in the great lakes was insignificant.

i don't know why other countries have anything to do with this discussion. China and Russia might account for the most now (i don't necessarily believe that) but they sure didn't between 1800-1950.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sc ... f-co2.html
Image
Image
Image
Image
you don't see environmental effects immediately, it's like presidential laws- they take some time to manifest themselves. read silent spring by rachel carson. ddt took years for it to manifest itself into soft egg syndrome. it's the bioaccumulation process involved. it took 20 years for the wildly successful US re-population of the peregrine falcon to get delisted from the endangered species act because it finally reached a healthy population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... onsumption
Image

i don't know how you make the claim that the entirety of anthropogenic acceleration could be insignificant and then say that "if we try, it doesn't mean anything anyways." sometimes it's not about the results, it's about doing the right thing and being proactive. i also disagree vehemently. the US and canada pretty much use what, 1/3 of electricity on the planet at pretty much any given time? let's even call it 10%. if everyone has solar panels installed, and we save, oh, to be fair, 1/3 of our electric production through coal, nuclear, or gas and oil, we are down to 6.7%. if we get better recycling programs, use smaller packaging, make people pay for transmission costs of power (cough NYC cough), let's say, on a low side, we shave off .7%. So we went from 10 to 6 pretty easily in moves that wouldn't take a lot of manpower or creativity. i wouldn't call that negligible or insignificant.

Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
Yes, we will need those new sources in short time, but the market will dictate the pace at which those sources are discovered and refined. Jump into certain unproven or financially risky energy options and we crush our economy with inflation, just like a huge hike in oil prices when supply eventually runs scarce. I'm not brainwashed by anybody or anything. I prefer science to go full speed ahead with green technologies, I just don't agree with making the industry a political football. Both parties are at fault for digging in, and which side has more lobbying money right now doesn't mean a damn thing, because ultimately they want to corner the market on political power, influence, or profit, as the case may be. That's the real motivation behind these political moves, "clean energy" bills, and research grants. Green corps and even the scientists behind them are infected by the politics and potential grant money, which makes getting unbiased research pretty damn tricky.

the market WILL fail in this case. Have you ever seen "who killed the electric car?"? i recommend you watch it. yes, it is biased, but you can glean real information from that, too. there are no unproven alternative energy options. solar is proven through science AND practice (see germany, who has a worse solar resource than almost every location in the US, including alaska). wind is proven to be efficient in many areas (typically those with less turbulence) and they are being refined to be feasible in many areas. not to mention geothermal heating (which is awesome) and high efficiency woodstoves (incredibly low maintentence) that use the process of gasification that makes a piece of wood burn at about 90% efficiency. a piece of poplar can heat a small house for 2-3 hours!! check this, not a bad intro video:


it's just not simple, because it's a combination of feasible options, not just one. there is no single option.

i agree with the unbiased research point. i see it every day.


NYIntensity wrote:
Fucking. Please.

hahahaa


okay, i'm done editing this single post. i'll add more in new posts from here on out. (12:20 a, EST)


Last edited by PatGreen on Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:00 am, edited 10 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:18 am 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
daz28 wrote:
Where the hell is Pat Green when ya need him?


NYIntensity wrote:
I'd like to see what Pat has to say about this, actually.


Stuuuuuuu wrote:
I'd love to hear from Pat Green about this as well.


i've never felt so loved


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:28 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
We all value an educated opinion, and, well, you're best qualified.

I nominate this as POTY.

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:18 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
Global warming is happening and most people, even "evil" repubs, don't deny that.



Just to be clear here, most Republicans (53%) say that there is "no solid evidence the earth is warming". This poll is from Oct 2010. The trend that shows here is that years ago more Republicans did believe in global warming (In 2007, 62% of Republicans said there is solid evidence of global warming) but as the issue has gained favor as a political tool the numbers have changed. I'm sorry but you can't just say "Most repubs don't deny global warming" when in fact they do. It's the heart of the problem....aka "driving science into a dark era".

Image
http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynu ... berID=1126

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:27 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
To be fair, they polled republicans from West Virginia...

/sarcasm

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:00 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Pat Green, I was basing that opinion on the post where you told me that encouraging people to watch Gasland was not responsible of me.


Top
 Profile  
 
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:15 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
I appreciate the time and info Pat, I knew last night you must have been writing a thesis. 'll clarify a few things you took me to task on...

You're right, I guess I rephrased what ou said. I wasn't sure exactly how yuou meant it, but now I know.

Yes, "insignificant" is a subjective word, but I'm not sure anybody knows what is significant or not as far as what causes global warming. Not to the point of knowing "x amount of carbon emissions equals x rise in average temperature".

Other countries have to do with the issue because they all affect the overall climate. Should the US make drastic changes that long term are good for the environment when other countries refuse and greatly reduce the effects of the US's effort, especially when that effort causes a huge shake-up and shift in our economy that results in business and jobs lost? It might be the "right" thing do to on one perspective, but it might really crush large regions of the country that depended on a certain type pf economy. BTW, somewhere a year or two ago I read about China and Russia being 1-2 in industrial pollution and/or carbon emissions, with the US 3rd. That might not be totally accurate but I'm sure it's not too far off, at least for the purpose of making a general point about other countries nullifying efforts to reduce global warming.

I'm not making any claims at all (aside from biased research), I'm just saying that the human impact on global warming COULD be "insignificant". The causation from human activity -> carbon emissions -> upswings/downswings in temps -> definite increase in avg global temperature that is ALSO over and above the current natural cycle of rising temps after a recent ice age is simply not totally known. I conserve every day, just by personal nature, and I do think it matters to try. But, if trying means an economic upheaval with regulations put into law by power/money motivated politicians that punitively punish certain industries and give to others in order to buy votes, all while putting large quantities of people out of work, there should be some definite caution in how to proceed.

I don't really suspect faulty science with green technologies, I suspect there will be some very rough transitions in how the market takes advantage of them. What businesses can use certain new sources of energy? Can they afford the overhead? Who loses/gains jobs in the process? Efficiency means less maintenance, so the manuel laborer probably loses out while the techno geek gets an upper hand. Oh wait, the US doesn't have enough techno geeks so where do they come from? Do even more companies move overseas to either avoid costly regulations or because their new techno geek worker base is better stocked there? These are market driven factors that yes, will probably have to play catch-up, but gov't initiatives always play favorites and cause more division in the process.

Cons/libs, dems/repubs...wherever people and politicians fall on the issue I think you'd see a hell of a lot more cooperation if the politics were removed from the science. Get unbiased facts and go from there with a steady transition to cleaner and more efficient energy sources. In the meantime schools are going to have to start preparing a work force that can compete in those areas, or we'll just be shifting our economy for other countries' andvantage.


Top
 Profile  
 
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:20 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
DF,

First, anybody can find any poll to say whatever they want. Second, what's "solid eveidence"? Just like Pat pointed out how my use of the word "insignificant" is subjective, so is that term. I'm just wasting time on a fan board though, not conducting a politically based poll that's going to be used for various and sundry purposes.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:01 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
DF,

First, anybody can find any poll to say whatever they want. Second, what's "solid evidence"? Just like Pat pointed out how my use of the word "insignificant" is subjective, so is that term. I'm just wasting time on a fan board though, not conducting a politically based poll that's going to be used for various and sundry purposes.


Dude seriously? I'm not trying to start a fight here with you. You said that Most Republicans believe in climate change. That is your opinion, that isn't backed by polls or reality though. I just did a huge research project on this for an environmental class and poll after poll showed similar findings. Also, don't sit here and pull the "Anyone can find a poll...." stuff with me. It doesn't back what you said, sorry but it is what it is. Heck you didn't even offer anything to back up your claim that "most" Republicans believe in global warming.

The GOP primary front runner Santorum said this recently about global warming :
Quote:
"...hoax…an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who saw this as an opportunity to create panic and crisis - for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life."
That's the dang GOP front runner.

To try and paint a picture that the majority of the GOP believes in global warming is just not true. The bottom line is that the skepticism on the right is thick. I'm not going to go find and link a list of polls, my youngest is sick and I don't have the time. Besides I have a feeling that despite my time you'd still discount anything I posted. ;)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:04 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
I'm not looking for a fight. Just to be clear I said, "...most people..., even repubs...". I'm not trying to split hairs here, but I didn't say that most repubs believe in global warming. I said most people, including repubs. It's obvious enough that people on the right or of a conservative nature believe less about global warming or how much of a threat it is...however you want to phrase it. I don't see the point of any poll unless it's used for divisive reasons. The poll question itself is flawed, so anyone like me who reads a poll question and sees "solid evidence" is going to get hung up on that. I'm OCD like that and answer questions literally. So far I see "solid evidence" of very little, but there are a lot of indications that point toward increased green energy sources...and I'm all for them if they can be steadily introduced to our economy without political power grabbing involved.

But again, fwiw, I don't think politics should be involved. I don't pay any attention to what Santorum says, but that quote is a great example of two things.

1- there IS a certain percentage of politicians that have taken advantage of the issue to gain votes through bills or grants favoring particular "green" tech corps. This causes backlash from people like Santorum that goes over the top without having the knowledge or time to discuss it beyond a snappy soundbite or quote.

2- there IS a certain percentage of research that has been blatently biased and tainted the trustworthiness of the science in general.

Now I hope you're happy! You ruined my day by making me use a Santorum quote as a good example of something!


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:50 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Sabresfansince1980 wrote:

Cons/libs, dems/repubs...wherever people and politicians fall on the issue I think you'd see a hell of a lot more cooperation if the politics were removed from the science. Get unbiased facts and go from there with a steady transition to cleaner and more efficient energy sources. In the meantime schools are going to have to start preparing a work force that can compete in those areas, or we'll just be shifting our economy for other countries' andvantage.

Pretending that there's more biased science supporting global warming than there is biased science calling it into question is just plain inaccurate. The VAST majority of science for YEARS has supported global warming, only a small fraction of scientists think there's even the smallest question of it. So by choosing to highlight things the way you are, you are trying to make it seem like the science supporting global warming is as biased as the science denying it. And that's just plain false and insulting, not only to our intelligence, but to the entire scientific community which you are basically discounting the work of.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:23 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
And to rephrase this a little, global warming is an issue that the scientific community on the whole decided upon decades ago. This was before there was any kind of "green" industry and really even before the word environmentalist became everyday lingo. Anyway, back then, scientists decided that global warming was a fact, and that humans contributed to it. It was printed in the science textbooks that I learned from in New York schools in the 70's and 80's. They called in the greenhouse effect. What greedy self-interests were these thousands of scientists serving by coming to that conclusion? What would be the motivation for anyone to say, "hey, you know the things that we do as a country and species that are cheaper and easier for everybody? Yeah, well we should stop doing those things and work hard and sacrifice." Where's the self-interest in that? Just to get those FAT RESEARCH GRANTS? No, I don't think so. I think that's insulting to the scientific community.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:01 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
Crosscheck wrote:
Huntsman was one of the more serious candidates...that was his problem.


I'm with you on that Cross. I find it ironic that the complete shitting of the bed that is the remaining GOP primary candidates has me agreeing with you. ;)

I could have seen myself taking a serious look at voting for Huntsman and I think a lot of people would agree with me. I honestly think he was their most electable face and they blew it. Unfortunately when he said the following, he signed the end of his run.
Quote:
"To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."
The voice from the right, aka Fox News had this to say:
Quote:
It’s true that Jon Huntsman was inaccurately branded as a liberal by the Republican electorate. But he has no one to but himself to blame.

A candidacy that was launched on the pages of Politico and on the airwaves of MSNBC with unending and fawning speculation was not bound to be a darling of the Republican rank and file. But when Huntsman showed up with sneering disdain for the majority views of his party and a snarky attitude, any hope that he could win mainstream appeal in the GOP was gone.


Nothing says good times like being pushed out of your party because you believe in science.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
SABRESAllTheWay
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:18 pm 
Offline
MegaDouche
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:41 am
Posts: 2752
Location: Fairfax, VA
Displaced Fan wrote:

Nothing says good times like being pushed out of your party because you believe in science.

I'm athiest AND a scientist.
Even if I were the best possible candidate available. I'd get thrown out almost immediately.

Maybe this sheds more light on my hatred for politics in general and why I may be leaning one side over the other.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:46 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
SABRESAllTheWay wrote:
Displaced Fan wrote:

Nothing says good times like being pushed out of your party because you believe in science.

I'm athiest AND a scientist.
Even if I were the best possible candidate available. I'd get thrown out almost immediately.

Maybe this sheds more light on my hatred for politics in general and why I may be leaning one side over the other.

I'm such a fucking nerd. But anyway, you should say "I'm an athiest", becuase the first time I read that what came across to me was "I'm a Theist", which has a quite different take-home message.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:47 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
SABRESAllTheWay wrote:
Displaced Fan wrote:

Nothing says good times like being pushed out of your party because you believe in science.

I'm athiest AND a scientist.
Even if I were the best possible candidate available. I'd get thrown out almost immediately.

Maybe this sheds more light on my hatred for politics in general and why I may be leaning one side over the other.

I'm such a fucking nerd. But anyway, you should say "I'm an athiest", becuase the first time I read that what came across to me was "I'm a Theist", which has a quite different take-home message.

:lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:57 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
Sabresfansince1980 wrote:

Cons/libs, dems/repubs...wherever people and politicians fall on the issue I think you'd see a hell of a lot more cooperation if the politics were removed from the science. Get unbiased facts and go from there with a steady transition to cleaner and more efficient energy sources. In the meantime schools are going to have to start preparing a work force that can compete in those areas, or we'll just be shifting our economy for other countries' andvantage.

Pretending that there's more biased science supporting global warming than there is biased science calling it into question is just plain inaccurate. The VAST majority of science for YEARS has supported global warming, only a small fraction of scientists think there's even the smallest question of it. So by choosing to highlight things the way you are, you are trying to make it seem like the science supporting global warming is as biased as the science denying it. And that's just plain false and insulting, not only to our intelligence, but to the entire scientific community which you are basically discounting the work of.


Ugh, I'm not pretending that the science showing global warming is in question. It's the causes and just how much of a factor the various causes are in creating it that is in question. Nobody has yet to determine that x amount of human activity (carbon emissions and so on) equals x amount of temp and/or climate change. It just hasn't been determined yet, and it might be pretty damn hard to put an accurate figure on it. While this uncertainty remains, plenty of biased research has been used by both sides of the issue for their own political purposes. I'm not about to try and split hairs over who cheats more. It's stupid question to try and answer, unless your hell bent on propping up your side and demonizing the other.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:05 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
It's not a stupid question to try and answer and it's an easy one: the right is dead wrong on this issue and they are the ones propagating much more false science. To argue otherwise is to distort the situation. This is not an issue where you can say "both sides have their points". No way.


Top
 Profile  
 
SABRESAllTheWay
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:26 pm 
Offline
MegaDouche
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:41 am
Posts: 2752
Location: Fairfax, VA
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
SABRESAllTheWay wrote:
Displaced Fan wrote:

Nothing says good times like being pushed out of your party because you believe in science.

I'm athiest AND a scientist.
Even if I were the best possible candidate available. I'd get thrown out almost immediately.

Maybe this sheds more light on my hatred for politics in general and why I may be leaning one side over the other.

I'm such a fucking nerd. But anyway, you should say "I'm an athiest", becuase the first time I read that what came across to me was "I'm a Theist", which has a quite different take-home message.

point taken, lol

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron