Bill Nye owns Heritage retard on climate change

[Harrekin]

For all we know we might never have fusion energy. These sources actually exist in usable form.

Not saying we should scrap fusion research, but there's no reason to stop researching other methods as well.

EDIT: The 'blimp' would be outstanding in rescue scenarios....

If you really wanna talk wind.

Wait till we're hooked up to mainland Europe's grid and we start putting off shore wind farms on our Atlantic coast...

 

[ginwilly]

How has the IPCC shown to be "shady as fuck"?

I'm assuming you're referring to climategate, if you reached that conclusion because of something else correct me

"The story was first broken by climate change critics on their blogs, with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy. Climate change critics and others denying the significance of human caused climate change argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy, in which they alleged that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics. The accusations were rejected by the CRU, who said that the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.

The mainstream media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December. Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers, and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference. In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

As I said, defending the integrity of the peeps high up in IPCC discredits you. Admitting these individuals are shady as fuck is not admitting their science is anything but solid. The emails suggest attempts to thwart opposition through nefarious means instead of through science. They show men worried about how their prior wrong predictions would affect funding among other shady as fuck things. Keep focusing on defending them and see if you help or hurt your cause to those who are just casual observers.

The two arguments are separate, something you can't seem to grasp.

 

[Ceepea]

If you really wanna talk wind.

Wait till we're hooked up to mainland Europe's grid and we start putting off shore wind farms on our Atlantic coast...

Wind energy is a great alternative, as long as it doesn't make too much noise... lol

Those blimp things, generate more than twice as much energy as similarly sized ground based units.

 

[UncleBuck]

As I said, defending the integrity of the peeps high up in IPCC discredits you. Admitting these individuals are shady as fuck is not admitting their science is anything but solid. The emails suggest attempts to thwart opposition through nefarious means instead of through science. They show men worried about how their prior wrong predictions would affect funding among other shady as fuck things. Keep focusing on defending them and see if you help or hurt your cause to those who are just casual observers.

The two arguments are separate, something you can't seem to grasp.

hey retard, do you have any idea what "exonerated" means?

you keep talking about failed predictions and how every single one was wrong on the high side yet you never cite it, becausenyou can't. you have been shown to be a liar over and over and over again.

the only shady as fuck individual here is your dumb ass.

 

[ginwilly]

We'll see giant windmills with screens around them to save the birds soon.

 

[UncleBuck]

We'll see giant windmills with screens around them to save the birds soon.

suddenly the right wing racists care about the environment.

i totally buy that.

 

[Harrekin]

We'll see giant windmills with screens around them to save the birds soon.

Greenpeace attacking wind power...

Thatd be interesting...

 

[Ceepea]

Graphene batteries are looking promising...

 

[ginwilly]

Graphene batteries are looking promising...

Better batteries are a main cog in the solution wheel. I hope people realize that while developing new awesome power, people in charge are trying to figure out how to weaponize this technology. That shouldn't stop us from trying, but we ignore this fact at our own peril.

 

[Ceepea]

An electric car with a graphene battery could change as fast or faster then you could fill your tank with gas. They're made out of carbon, so the materials are abundant, and they're the most conductive material known to man.

EDIT: Hell, with a graphene battery and the right technology in the road and the car/truck you wouldn't even need to pull over to charge up. Do it on the fly.

 

[heckler73]

http://www.graphene-info.com/researchers-develop-graphene-based-high-performance-bendable-battery

 

[Padawanbater2]

As I said, defending the integrity of the peeps high up in IPCC discredits you. Admitting these individuals are shady as fuck is not admitting their science is anything but solid. The emails suggest attempts to thwart opposition through nefarious means instead of through science. They show men worried about how their prior wrong predictions would affect funding among other shady as fuck things. Keep focusing on defending them and see if you help or hurt your cause to those who are just casual observers.

The two arguments are separate, something you can't seem to grasp.

You don't know what you're talking about. You read off some right wing website that the IPCC scientists are manipulating the data. 8 different committees investigated the claims and you still don't accept it. You're a denier, not a skeptic.

suddenly the right wing racists care about the environment.

i totally buy that.

 

[ginwilly]

You don't know what you're talking about. You read off some right wing website that the IPCC scientists are manipulating the data. 8 different committees investigated the claims and you still don't accept it. You're a denier, not a skeptic.

You are starting to go off the deep end. I read the actual emails. I'm going to assume you did too. I came to the same conclusion the committees came to, I didn't see fraud, I didn't see data manipulation and the science is still solid.

What I did see was shady as fuck. They discussed how to use political pressure to prevent dissenting opinions from being published, the best way to explain the error of the hockey-stick, how to hide the fact that the temp increases they predicted didn't happen, and the best ways to extract public funding. If you are an ends justify the means guy you can avoid this and overlook it. What you can't do is claim they weren't shady and then convince a skeptic or denier you arguing based on fact and not agenda.

It's like you fear admitting any political shenanigans or anything but altruistic behavior, it validates the denier. It doesn't, in fact it could actually move the argument forward admitting what everyone else sees.

Edit: seriously pad, we've had posters put up graphs that stop at 2000 to prove they were right about their predictions for the next decade. You guys hurt the cause assuming people who are not inline yet are too stupid to see through the deceptions. They have to questoin, why the deceptions? it doesn't change the science.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You are starting to go off the deep end. I read the actual emails. I came to the same conclusion the committees came to, I didn't see fraud, I didn't see data manipulation and the science is still solid.

What I did see was shady as fuck. They discussed how to use political pressure to prevent dissenting opinions from being published, the best way to explain the error of the hockey-stick, how to hide the fact that the temp increases they predicted didn't happen, and the best ways to extract public funding. If you are an ends justify the means guy you can avoid this and overlook it. What you can't do is claim they weren't shady and then convince a skeptic or denier you arguing based on fact and not agenda.

It's like you fear admitting any political shenanigans or anything but altruistic behavior, it validates the denier. It doesn't, in fact it could actually move the argument forward admitting what everyone else sees.

That's exactly what the investigations were about. It's as if you're saying this guy was tried for murder, found to be not guilty, but he actually killed the guy. Wut?

Investigation into political/scientific manipulation > found none > exonerated > still "shady fucks"

Post the text you think shows any manipulation taking place

 

[ginwilly]

That's exactly what the investigations were about. It's as if you're saying this guy was tried for murder, found to be not guilty, but he actually killed the guy. Wut?

Investigation into political/scientific manipulation > found none > exonerated > still "shady fucks"

Post the text you think shows any manipulation taking place

wowzers......you can't be real.

There were resignations and reassignments after the investigations but no lynchings. This proves their altruistic nature to you?

Now I'm going to have to assume you DIDN'T read the emails and are instead just repeating talking points from the left. So disappointing. I'm going to back away slowly now, I overestimated you.

 

[Padawanbater2]

wowzers......you can't be real.

There were resignations and reassignments after the investigations but no lynchings. This proves their altruistic nature to you?

Now I'm going to have to assume you DIDN'T read the emails and are instead just repeating talking points from the left. So disappointing. I'm going to back away slowly now, I overestimated you.

So you can't post any text showing examples of political or scientific manipulation?

 

[ginwilly]

You are starting to go off the deep end. I read the actual emails. I'm going to assume you did too. I came to the same conclusion the committees came to, I didn't see fraud, I didn't see data manipulation and the science is still solid.

So you can't post any text showing examples of political or scientific manipulation?

.

just stop man. It's become painfully obvious now to any observers that you didn't actually read the emails and are just repeating what you heard or read from your favorite leftists.

You didn't read the emails yet are emotionally involved in defending their honor. Congrats on solidifying the stereotypes.

 

[Padawanbater2]

IPCC is shown to be shady as fuck, I'm not just a skeptic, I'm bordering on being a denier.

How has the IPCC shown to be "shady as fuck"?

The emails suggest attempts to thwart opposition through nefarious means instead of through science. They show men worried about how their prior wrong predictions would affect funding among other shady as fuck things.

I came to the same conclusion the committees came to, I didn't see fraud, I didn't see data manipulation and the science is still solid.

What I did see was shady as fuck. They discussed how to use political pressure to prevent dissenting opinions from being published, the best way to explain the error of the hockey-stick, how to hide the fact that the temp increases they predicted didn't happen, and the best ways to extract public funding.

So you can't post any text showing examples of political or scientific manipulation?

Investigation into political/scientific manipulation > found none > exonerated > still "shady fucks"

There were resignations and reassignments after the investigations but no lynchings.

How would that mean anything? If there was anything nefarious or illegal going on why didn't any of the investigations find that? If not, why do you continue to say they're "shady fucks"? You're not making much sense here, man.. You're trying to take both sides and I guess expect nobody to notice?

So I'm guessing you believe all 8 of those investigations were corrupt...? Oh, wait, no, you said you believed in the science.. you didn't see any data manipulation.. Idk still shady fucks though... I guess..

 

[ginwilly]

How would that mean anything? If there was anything nefarious or illegal going on why didn't any of the investigations find that? If not, why do you continue to say they're "shady fucks"? You're not making much sense here, man.. You're trying to take both sides and I guess expect nobody to notice?

So I'm guessing you believe all 8 of those investigations were corrupt...? Oh, wait, no, you said you believed in the science.. you didn't see any data manipulation.. Idk still shady fucks though... I guess..

Can't believe I'm still entertaining you but I still have hope...

The bankers who helped destroy our economy were not found guilty of any illegal activity. But they were shady as fuck with their practices.

Dick Cheney was never indicted of any illegal activities that brought our country to war but his story and "proof" are shady as fuck.

Do you have issue with either statement above?

The emails that you did not read because your leftist info tank did not include them showed a few guys who were shady as fuck. One of them even retired in shame.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Can't believe I'm still entertaining you but I still have hope...

The bankers who helped destroy our economy were not found guilty of any illegal activity. But they were shady as fuck with their practices.

Dick Cheney was never indicted of any illegal activities that brought our country to war but his story and "proof" are shady as fuck.

Do you have issue with either statement above?

The emails that you did not read because your leftist info tank did not include them showed a few guys who were shady as fuck. One of them even retired in shame.

You're saying "THE IPCC IS SHADY AS FUCK" not "THESE THREE GUYS ARE SHADY AS FUCK", do you understand the difference? You're saying you believe in the science of anthropogenic climate change, the exact same thing the IPCC says.