Man Made Global Warming

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

yes yes! Mad max now!

There are enough real life mad max types here in Australia, especially in mining country. Not sure we need any more.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Actually, it was Socialism.... all the PIIGS are Socialist countries and the home loan laws of the US socialist Government (Clinton Democrats) was the fuse.

...

You people like to throw that 'Socialist' label around a lot. It seems to be a blanket term of abuse for anything you don't particularly like, because it doesn't have much to do with any definition of socialism that I've read.

If you described Ireland (and specifically the Fianna Fail government and their policies) as socialist most people would find it hard to stop laughing. The Irish screwup was caused by the banks having to be bailed out and rescued by the (boo hiss! BAD!!!) government/state after fueling a housing boom that subsequently crashed.

Similar situation in Spain afaik.

And to describe the US Democrats as socialist is such a joke ...it really is.

The banks caused the mess in the US too, and if they hadn't had the big bad state to bail them out you people would be in a much worse situation than you already are.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

That's how I did it since age 14 till today, only a couple of employers along the way.

like i said, wonderfully simplistic.

so if everyone did that, or became entrepreneurs in whatever field, do you not think there would be failures due to the sheer level of competition? where would start up investment come from? what about comparative levels of education, socio-economic backgrounds, sheer ability... i mean seriously, you expect 50% of spanish youth to just go out there and make money from... what? thin air? who is going to spend money on their enterprise if no one has money?

is this that american dream thing?

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by kendo65

You people like to throw that 'Socialist' label around a lot. It seems to be a blanket term of abuse for anything you don't particularly like, because it doesn't have much to do with any definition of socialism that I've read.

If you described Ireland (and specifically the Fianna Fail government and their policies) as socialist most people would find it hard to stop laughing. The Irish screwup was caused by the banks having to be bailed out and rescued by the (boo hiss! BAD!!!) government/state after fueling a housing boom that subsequently crashed.

Similar situation in Spain afaik.

And to describe the US Democrats as socialist is such a joke ...it really is.

The banks caused the mess in the US too, and if they hadn't had the big bad state to bail them out you people would be in a much worse situation than you already are.

if they aren't republican then they are damn well socialist.

it's the black and white world show! basic understanding of the political spectrum not required!

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

like i said, wonderfully simplistic.

so if everyone did that, or became entrepreneurs in whatever field, do you not think there would be failures due to the sheer level of competition? where would start up investment come from? what about comparative levels of education, socio-economic backgrounds, sheer ability... i mean seriously, you expect 50% of spanish youth to just go out there and make money from... what? thin air? who is going to spend money on their enterprise if no one has money?

is this that american dream thing?

I know the situation is dire for much of the world's youth. I didn't mean to imply there is a one size fits all cure.

[=CfC= Father Ted]

Originally Posted by camber

Floors and floors of modestly paid scientists on depressing short term contracts

....

We Scientists (not a climatologist btw) just try our best, for reasons we doubt ourselves sometimes, to present the closest to the objective truth we can produce and hope someone actually reads it. From our clever predecessors we know all the ways that humans can delude themselves in technical arguments when they want something to be true, and we pounce on other scientists in meetings when they make those mistakes. We can be smartarses in forums pointing out when non scientists show these argument biases again and again and again.

....

The scientific consensus on global warming is very clear, and has been verified by multiple avenues of research and multiple groups of scientists who probably don't like each other that much. Sorry.

Pretty much plus one to this. I used to work in government-funded research in the UK. People who do this sort of stuff aren't in it for the money. They're not into trying to scam the general public out of money to fund their lifestyles. If they do want more money, it's to fund their actual research. They're driven by a desire to find stuff out, and also to earn the respect of their peers.

To make a slightly tortured analogy, they're like people who fly online and insist it's full switch - they want other people to say "That guy's good!". So there are egos involved. This means, as Camber pointed out, that the scientific consensus is not normally arrived at though some chummy agreement.

Before anyone jumps on this post, I'm not claiming that these people do their stuff for free, or that they'd turn down the chance to get paid like Premiership footballers. But I bet if they did get paid that much, they'd use a good chunk of the money to buy better scientific gear, rather than two Lamborghinis.

Success for them is not about earning more and more dosh.

On the other side of the fence, to my mind, you have the petro-chemical industry. I think we can agree that they do measure success in terms of profits. Why could they possibly opposed to the idea that the burning of fossil fuels is something that we should be curtailing?

Of these two sides, which is the more powerful, in terms of shaping world economy and politics? A bunch of people who just want to prove that they're right to their own small community, or a bunch of people who can convince nations to go to war in their interests?

If there is a conspiracy involved in proving the validity of the theory of man-made climate change, I know who I think is behind it.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

I can see it now. Scientists playing ping pong, back and forth, frying up big fat steaks on the BBQ while calibrating their CO2 meters. Please tell us now you work for GE or Monsanto.

Sorry, I try to restrain myself. But gee whiz.

lies.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by jimson8

Ok I'll put it another way, when has marxism ever not led to tyranny and mass murder?

Yeah, I think it's worth giving up on.

again though, that's not marxism in it's true form - it's perverted and used to give the same old style of inequality a nice bit of window dressing. basically, like religion, it's a nice ideology until the people in charge start to use it for their own ends.

when has an unfettered free market economy not led to a collapse of financial institutions which has severely impacted the lower tiers of society? when has it led to a level of economic equality that doesn't see large numbers disenfranchised, disillusioned and destitute? how far are you from a financial calamity - 6 months sick with something that renders you unable to work and isn't covered by health insurance? a natural disaster? a downturn in the market for your products?

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by =CfC= Father Ted

Pretty much plus one to this. I used to work in government-funded research in the UK. People who do this sort of stuff aren't in it for the money. They're not into trying to scam the general public out of money to fund their lifestyles. If they do want more money, it's to fund their actual research. They're driven by a desire to find stuff out, and also to earn the respect of their peers.

To make a slightly tortured analogy, they're like people who fly online and insist it's full switch - they want other people to say "That guy's good!". So there are egos involved. This means, as Camber pointed out, that the scientific consensus is not normally arrived at though some chummy agreement.

Before anyone jumps on this post, I'm not claiming that these people do their stuff for free, or that they'd turn down the chance to get paid like Premiership footballers. But I bet if they did get paid that much, they'd use a good chunk of the money to buy better scientific gear, rather than two Lamborghinis.

Success for them is not about earning more and more dosh.

On the other side of the fence, to my mind, you have the petro-chemical industry. I think we can agree that they do measure success in terms of profits. Why could they possibly opposed to the idea that the burning of fossil fuels is something that we should be curtailing?

Of these two sides, which is the more powerful, in terms of shaping world economy and politics? A bunch of people who just want to prove that they're right to their own small community, or a bunch of people who can convince nations to go to war in their interests?

If there is a conspiracy involved in proving the validity of the theory of man-made climate change, I know who I think is behind it.

oh but of course.

then there's the tales of patents for various renewable or non-fossil fuel driven systems being bought up by petro-chemical companies, stock piled to ensure the company survives beyond stocks and supply of said fossil fuels. i mean it's a conspiracy theory, but the depressing thing is that it is entirely credible. why hurt their market share before they have to, right?

[camber]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

I can see it now. Scientists playing ping pong, back and forth, frying up big fat steaks on the BBQ while calibrating their CO2 meters. Please tell us now you work for GE or Monsanto.

Sorry, I try to restrain myself. But gee whiz.

No, I am afraid it is good old mostly taxpayer funded research in the land of Aus. I have never actually seen anyone play ping pong but the the BBQ sometimes gets a workout after 5pm on Fridays

Scientists used to be more fun before OH&S, risk assessments and whatnot. Putting dry ice into tiny capped tubes was always fun, then put them down other scientist's lab coats without them noticing (and then sneak away before they explode)