• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Proof Conservatives Know They're Done

Started by NowhereInTime, February 06, 2014, 07:30:24 PM

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 19, 2014, 11:18:33 PM
Are the models accurate or not? Now you're saying that they aren't. Look a bit deeper in to Freeman Dyson's papers on climate change, you'll find much of what I'm saying within them. And he's not the only one, there are a number of physicists that question the methods of climate science.

No, actually I view science from the standpoint of holding a degree in a science. Skepticism is essential to science, yet in this one field skepticism is ostracized. That's not scientific, it's really that simple. And the reason skepticism isn't allowed is specifically because the issue is more political than scientific.

I advocate skepticism, not bad science. As Carl Sagan once said (somewhat before he fucked up by claiming the burning of the Iraqi oil fields would produce an effect similar to a nuclear winter) extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And the climate scientists simply do not have it given the magnitude of the social impact of their findings. They are an immature, relatively new field. Personally, I think a much greater and more immediate threat is an asteroid hitting the planet, and had a few variables been different in the Chelabinsk event of last year a Russian city might have been reduced to a smoking hole. But that's being ignored entirely due to NASA budget cuts done by the Obama administration. The reason they can do that is because the problem is not in the political arena.

No, my position is that nuclear fusion is an entirely different phenomenon than nuclear fission and it should not be opposed as though they were the same thing.

Here's fission:

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

That's what you should be scared of.

Here's fusion:

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

That's what you shouldn't be mistaking for fission.

Here's ITER:

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

Notice they had to change the meaning of the acronym because you morons on the left kept mistaking it for a fission reactor.

And here's your peeps pissing and moaning about an entirely clean energy source that's already producing net gains in energy production in US labs:


http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/

And don't think that opposition is merely due to mistaking fusion and fission. It's because you people on the left want the human race to stop expanding, stop breeding, and stop advancing.

Don't believe me? Then please explain why the left, and it's not just Greenpeace, would oppose an entirely clean energy source that neither has the potential for accidents nor produces any appreciable amount of radioactivity or waste products.
Again, everything with you is viewed through a political lens.  Where did I post objections to nuclear power, fission or fusion?  I'm in favour of both.  In fact, if you look at the nations that are most reliant on nuclear energy, you will find that they are all left leaning:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/top-ten-countries-nuclear-power.htm

I hate to bring politics into science, but you seem determined to, and this is a political thread.  But conflating skepticism with conservatism is a fallacy.  The first is essential to scientific enquiry, the latter is anathema to it. 

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on April 19, 2014, 11:48:35 PM
Again, everything with you is viewed through a political lens.  Where did I post objections to nuclear power, fission or fusion?  I'm in favour of both. 

You're inconsistent with the left then, thus you hold a conservative viewpoint particularly in regards to nuclear energy. You were quite ready to condemn me politically as a conservative so let's not act like you aren't seeing through the same lens.

Quote
In fact, if you look at the nations that are most reliant on nuclear energy, you will find that they are all left leaning:

They're all reducing their nuclear programs. The left used to not be anti-technology, certainly when those nuclear programs were instituted the left was quite progressive. It's not anymore. It's evolved into an anti-humanist mode of thinking and is causing much suffering worldwide. Let's not lie to ourselves here and act like the left hasn't been protesting nuclear energy for decades. It's been a hallmark of the left since the 1970's.

Quote
I hate to bring politics into science, but you seem determined to, and this is a political thread.  But conflating skepticism with conservatism is a fallacy.  The first is essential to scientific enquiry, the latter is anathema to it.

I'm bitching about politics having been brought into climate science, causing it to abandon certain scientific principals such as skepticism being a good thing. It's not rocket science to look at physics and see healthy skepticism abounding, and then look at climate science and see skepticism being ostracized and put down. There's a reason why you ostracize climate change skeptics. I recommend a self-examination to come up with a reason why YOU do that. Let me know what you come up with.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 20, 2014, 12:16:18 AM
You're inconsistent with the left then, thus you hold a conservative viewpoint particularly in regards to nuclear energy. You were quite ready to condemn me politically as a conservative so let's not act like you aren't seeing through the same lens.

They're all reducing their nuclear programs. The left used to not be anti-technology, certainly when those nuclear programs were instituted the left was quite progressive. It's not anymore. It's evolved into an anti-humanist mode of thinking and is causing much suffering worldwide. Let's not lie to ourselves here and act like the left hasn't been protesting nuclear energy for decades. It's been a hallmark of the left since the 1970's.

I'm bitching about politics having been brought into climate science, causing it to abandon certain scientific principals such as skepticism being a good thing. It's not rocket science to look at physics and see healthy skepticism abounding, and then look at climate science and see skepticism being ostracized and put down. There's a reason why you ostracize climate change skeptics. I recommend a self-examination to come up with a reason why you do that. Let me know what you come up with.
Hmm, the left is anti science, and the right is pro science?  That's your point?

Try googling creationism in schools, or the conservative position on stem cell research, or, I dunno, climate change, and see where the right stands on those issues.  But then again, you think this guy has answers:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ron-paul-i-dont-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on April 20, 2014, 12:22:27 AM
Hmm, the left is anti science, and the right is pro science?  That's your point?

No, that's not my point. Reread so I don't have to waste time repeating myself and you don't have to waste time waiting for me to write another five paragraphs to clarify it.

Quote
Try googling creationism in schools, or the conservative position on stem cell research, or, I dunno, climate change, and see where the right stands on those issues.  But then again, you think this guy has answers:

I oppose creationism, which is not monolithic on the right, nor is it even monolithic within Christianity. To quote Pope John Paul II "Evolution is more than a theory". Stem cell research was never in question, fetal stem cell research was and it's proven so far to be dead end. You won the fight and it ended up doing not doing anyone any good--despite proponents promising their ass off that it would during those days. Well, here we are, your folks promised that the quadriplegics would be dancing out of their wheelchairs by now with fetal stem cells. Where is it?  It was really just a political distraction to support or oppose abortion. And had you not fallen for a distraction and actually listened to the vast majority of medical researchers at the time, they were suggesting that you be skeptical of it. Why? Because adults are not fetuses.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ron-paul-i-dont-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/
[/quote]

Yes, well, he is an MD. I guess you don't want skepticism on evolution? Is that off limits now? I am convinced that evolution occurs and welcome skepticism because I'm certain that it will hold up to scrutiny. It has for 150 years. But I don't see a theory as a quasi-religious principle like you guys do. Question the fuck out of it, I'm confident that it will hold up and questioning everything is a great thing. You on the left should do it more often.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 20, 2014, 12:35:07 AM
Yes, well, he is an MD. I guess you don't want skepticism on evolution? Is that off limits now? I am convinced that evolution occurs and welcome skepticism because I'm certain that it will hold up to scrutiny. It has for 150 years. But I don't see a theory as a quasi-religious principle like you guys do. Question the fuck out of it, I'm confident that it will hold up and questioning everything is a great thing. You on the left should do it more often.
You say you don't want to repeat yourself, yet again you revert to a political viewpoint, and try to conflate healthy scientific skepticism (which itself relies on the scientific method) with simply having an opinion on something.  Ron Paul has an opinion on evolution based on religious faith, and he is entitled to.  But his opinion has no standing in a discussion of science, because science isn't about faith.  It is about facts. And his MD? You bestow more weight on his credentials than the thousands of accredited scientists who agree on a simple, proven fact - that climate change is real, and humans (be they white, black, gay, straight, progressive or conservative, vegan or omnivore) are culpable.

When push comes to shove, you either agree that science sits above belief systems, political, religious or otherwise, or you believe that science and belief systems are equivalent.  You would seem to be in the science = religion camp.

onan

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 19, 2014, 10:00:55 PM
You incorrectly read my point, though I'd have thought the use of the word "selenium" would have tipped you off that I wasn't talking about nitrogen. Go back and read what I wrote instead of posting a bullshit response please.

Fuck it, I'll dumb it down for you:

The lack of nutrients, which currently has zero effect on public nutrition since you're obviously not sitting there dying of scurvy, is largely due to soil depletion. The solution is that you fix the fucking soil depletion Onan. Apparently that seems as hard as going to fucking Alpha Centauri to you, but to me I see that we already fertilize every fucking farm field in the US and can easily add other nutrients to the mix. Jeeeezus.

And if that doesn't work, GMO the fucking things so they produce whatever the hell nutrient value you want.

Fucking right you are, you just claimed I was talking about nitrogen with no basis whatsoever to do it from as a kneejerk reaction to being presented with a solution. That's fucked up. You really do apparently think that you can't alter a plant's nutrient levels. That's fucking incomprehensible to me. Why would you think that?

Yeah, except the proof is the pudding. The GMO potato, which was not cultivated by seed, not transmissible genetically to other potatoes nor a product of Monsanto was all but killed off for human consumption by your protestors. Hopefully it will make a comeback, but your folks did a real number on it.

No, I think outside the box and ask unpopular questions and make unpopular points. Are you saying that's unhealthy for society?

More CO2 is bad, More Nitrogen is bad. We have soil depletion due to over producing one crop instead of rotation.  First you say more CO2 is good then you say it doesn't matter. Whether a crop has less nutrients just points to the lame suggestion that more CO2 is good. It isn't.

You are a hack. A well read hack but a hack. Yeah scientists have a huge consensus on the damaging affects of green house gases, so they are just a bunch of group thinkers that need your insight, because... you think outside the box.


I believe that the "Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead, drill, baby, drill" attitude will be very detrimental.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: onan on April 20, 2014, 10:38:52 AM
More CO2 is bad, More Nitrogen is bad. We have soil depletion due to over producing one crop instead of rotation.  First you say more CO2 is good then you say it doesn't matter. Whether a crop has less nutrients just points to the lame suggestion that more CO2 is good. It isn't.

You are a hack. A well read hack but a hack. Yeah scientists have a huge consensus on the damaging affects of green house gases, so they are just a bunch of group thinkers that need your insight, because... you think outside the box.

Astonishing. You still think I was talking about nitrogen. Onan, normally I can talk to you, but you seem to have no understanding of what I was presenting here. Your refusal to believe that solutions exist to problems underscores what I said: you've brainwashed yourself.

It's actually kind of sad this time. I'm willing to talk further on the subject, but you're going to have to take me point by point and not misconstrue what I say.

onan

Quote from: West of the Rockies on April 20, 2014, 10:53:12 AM
I believe that the "Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead, drill, baby, drill" attitude will be very detrimental.

You have no standing, sir. Are you a group thinker? Besides it is already past the tipping point... so, what are you talking about? And oh yeah, are you happy you are starving the poor in third world countries? Are you one of those We-need-the-world-population-to be-less-than commie leftists?

onan

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 20, 2014, 10:57:10 AM
Astonishing. You still think I was talking about nitrogen. Onan, normally I can talk to you, but you seem to have no understanding of what I was presenting here. Your refusal to believe that solutions exist to problems underscores what I said: you've brainwashed yourself.

It's actually kind of sad this time. I'm willing to talk further on the subject, but you're going to have to take me point by point and not misconstrue what I say.

Sorry mate, your fuck it dumb it down, made me realize you aren't interested in talking to me. Yeah I normally don't mind a bit of back and forth. But this time, I have had it with you. I have no doubt you have put a great deal of thought into this, I also believe you probably do have for the most part a rational conviction to your points. But I have had it.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on April 20, 2014, 01:14:08 AM
You say you don't want to repeat yourself, yet again you revert to a political viewpoint, and try to conflate healthy scientific skepticism (which itself relies on the scientific method) with simply having an opinion on something.

Let's not act like you haven't been interjecting flagrantly political statements throughout your posts. You're trying to mischaracterize my responses to them as political, well of course they fucking are, they're responses to political statements.

Quote
Ron Paul has an opinion on evolution based on religious faith, and he is entitled to.  But his opinion has no standing in a discussion of science, because science isn't about faith.

You brought him up in a discussion of science. Not me. If you were trying to say that his opinion has no standing in a discussion of science, then why did you post the link in the middle of a discussion about science?

Quote
  It is about facts. And his MD? You bestow more weight on his credentials than the thousands of accredited scientists who agree on a simple, proven fact - that climate change is real, and humans (be they white, black, gay, straight, progressive or conservative, vegan or omnivore) are culpable.

Yes. An MD can show a record of good or bad treatment. Climate scientists can show a wildly varying record since the 1960's that ranges from global cooling to global warming and finally the ambiguous term climate change. They failed to predict the pause in global temperature rises and are not holding themselves to the same standards of other sciences. Further maturity within their field is needed, and they really need to stop with the public alarmism. It's good for funding, but bad for the human race.

Quote
When push comes to shove, you either agree that science sits above belief systems, political, religious or otherwise, or you believe that science and belief systems are equivalent.  You would seem to be in the science = religion camp.

If it's held to scientific standards. I've demonstrated in our discussion that it's not, and that it has to resort to the suspension of skepticism to advance it's findings. That is not acceptable.

And no, I am an atheist and believe religion to be a fantasy. You are fantasizing that I would be in the science=religion camp because you feel that conservatism can be neatly wrapped up in a box because that's what your talking points demand, but it's simply not the case. In short, you're fishing for catch-points with that one.

Quote from: onan on April 20, 2014, 10:57:59 AM
You have no standing, sir. Are you a group thinker? Besides it is already past the tipping point... so, what are you talking about? And oh yeah, are you happy you are starving the poor in third world countries? Are you one of those We-need-the-world-population-to be-less-than commie leftists?

Guess I am guilty of group think; after all, I have thrown in with the Union of Concerned Scientists.  Of course, those blokes are all frauds, just lookin' for the big dollar research grant.  And actually, I do worry that the human population is getting a bit big.  Unintended consequences and such.... 

It is all too clear that it takes nine tons of TNT to get people to change their minds.  I blame argutainment and corrosive talk radio.  Lying liars who lie....

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: onan on April 20, 2014, 11:03:09 AM
Sorry mate, your fuck it dumb it down, made me realize you aren't interested in talking to me. Yeah I normally don't mind a bit of back and forth. But this time, I have had it with you. I have no doubt you have put a great deal of thought into this, I also believe you probably do have for the most part a rational conviction to your points. But I have had it.

Well, you know when you make a specific attempt at making sure that the opponent knows that your talking about nutrients by using the word "selenium" and he comes back saying you were talking about nitrogen, it's a big flashing neon indicator that either the fucker didn't bother to read the post or he's intentionally trying to misconstrue your point.

So yeah, that's gonna make me a little pissy. Not to mention you started this with the claim that I didn't know anything about agriculture, i.e. starting from a point of ad hominem. Exactly what do you expect from that approach? Civility?

You're done because you don't have a response. You know that plant nutrient levels are a solvable problem and you can't think of anything to say to the contrary. You're not fooling me.

onan

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 20, 2014, 11:19:45 AM
Well, you know when you make a specific attempt at making sure that the opponent knows that your talking about nutrients by using the word "selenium" and he comes back saying you were talking about nitrogen, it's a big flashing neon indicator that either the fucker didn't bother to read the post or he's intentionally trying to misconstrue your point.

So yeah, that's gonna make me a little pissy. Not to mention you started this with the claim that I didn't know anything about agriculture, i.e. starting from a point of ad hominem. Exactly what do you expect from that approach? Civility?

You're done because you don't have a response. You know that plant nutrient levels are a solvable problem and you can't think of anything to say to the contrary. You're not fooling me.

All right let's start over.

I am not the best at communicating with text. I often get frustrated and cut short what I am trying to say. that often leads to more clarification later on, or I just give up.

You made the suggestion that higher CO2 was beneficial to crop production. It really isn't but as you pointed out scurvy hasn't set in. But the real issue is CO2 is at higher levels and it isn't a good thing. but I didn't make that argument simply enough. And it is real frustrating to deal with the concept of, all we need to do is add more of this. And then the discussion kind of spiraled into so many other facets, I just wanted to get back to the original point. I didn't talk about selenium because it isn't a green house gas.

Catsmile

Please tell us more how the lefties are killing people of the 3rd world.
Drill baby... er, GMO baby GMO!

This is just anecdotal of course, because no guys in lab coats are running around doing proper test. I guess the people who have been farmers for thousands of years are doing it wrong. Maybe they need more "selenium", yep that'll fix it. Hey whats a little "collateral damage", in the "war on hunger", right?

 
Here is a link where more info can be found.
I'll just leave this here,for starters.

http://youtu.be/LFF96-wrtUM

Is this going to be like ObamaCare, where one day we wake up and find out everything we were told was a pack of lies - told intentionally? 

Nothing the government tells us is the truth anymore.  Less so when it's international government elites and Big Government proponents of the Left.  Why should we believe them this time when they've already been caught red handed lying and grossly exaggerating about it? 

It's not as if these same people have been truthful about their other schemes over the years.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: onan on April 20, 2014, 11:41:52 AM
All right let's start over.

I am not the best at communicating with text. I often get frustrated and cut short what I am trying to say. that often leads to more clarification later on, or I just give up.

You made the suggestion that higher CO2 was beneficial to crop production. It really isn't but as you pointed out scurvy hasn't set in. But the real issue is CO2 is at higher levels and it isn't a good thing. but I didn't make that argument simply enough. And it is real frustrating to deal with the concept of, all we need to do is add more of this. And then the discussion kind of spiraled into so many other facets, I just wanted to get back to the original point. I didn't talk about selenium because it isn't a green house gas.

Yes, rising levels of CO2 can be directly correlated to rises in plant growth as high as 14 percent in the second half of the 20th century. This was demonstrated by Ramakrishna Nemani et al in "Recent Trends in Hydrologic Balance Have Enhanced the Terrestrial Carbon Sink in the United States," Geophysical Research letters 29, no 10 (2002): 1468.

Another study done at Oak Ridge National Laboratory on natural trees showed that increasing CO2 concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere to 550 ppm should increase photosynthetic productivity of all plants by at least a further 24 percent.

Our carbon production is making the planet more fertile. As I stated before, lowering nutritional value in plants is an eminently solvable problem.

And that's not the only benefit of a warmer Earth. 1000 years ago during the medieval climate optimum, average global temperatures were significantly higher than they are now. As a result agricultural activity extended much further north than it does at present, yet remained the same in the south; they were still growing wheat in the Nile basin. Warming climate would free up an enormous amount of potentially arable land that's currently locked in permafrost. Parts of Siberia and Northern Canada will become cultivatable again.

So yeah, even if the alarmist claims are true--of which I am skeptical--there are demonstrable benefits to a warmer world.

Of course there's not much money in saying that. Let's face it, alarmist freakouts are lucrative. That's why they keep coming decade after decade.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: Catsmile on April 20, 2014, 12:32:48 PM
Please tell us more how the lefties are killing people of the 3rd world.
Drill baby... er, GMO baby GMO!

This is just anecdotal of course, because no guys in lab coats are running around doing proper test. I guess the people who have been farmers for thousands of years are doing it wrong. Maybe they need more "selenium", yep that'll fix it. Hey whats a little "collateral damage", in the "war on hunger", right?

 
Here is a link where more info can be found.
I'll just leave this here,for starters.

http://youtu.be/LFF96-wrtUM

Well actually, if you want to talk about India specifically, the lefties at the world bank and the UN ran amok in the 70's sterilizing just about anyone they could find. In 1975, Robert S. McNamara (Yes, Kennedy and Johnson's Secretary of Defense), then head of the World Bank, forced Indira Gandhi to institute sustainable population initiatives within India making forced sterilization, especially of women, a condition of water use, farming, rationing, pay raises, medical care and a great many other things including rickshaw licenses.

Do go to India and ask one of the +- 20 million people that were sterilized under the auspices of 'sustainability' if it's anecdotal.

albrecht

Quote from: wr250 on April 18, 2014, 11:52:44 AM
well then its a good thing pot is not a narcotic
According to the UN and US Government it is a narcotic. Which shows you how much they know. Though, in their defense, they claim to be using the term "narcotic" as a quasi-legal term meaning prohibited drug not, as an actual pharmacological usage of the term. (Any drug deemed "illegal" is a "narcotic" in some of the laws and treaties etc.) Of course, to me, any laws that start out with such an unscientific basis are starting out on the wrong foot!

Speaking of politics. Just listen to old Art Bell shows. Same issues, same arguments, same political divide. Although, I think, the general discussion has moved somewhat more libertarian in some areas after some decades of propaganda (homosexuality and marijuana seemed to have gained more acceptance.) But the gun control, wars, economic debate, Presidential "tyranny", Republican "revolution", Republican "Nazis", Liberal "commies", etc arguments on this board (or in society) is right out of C2C circa 1994. (Whatever happened to the liberal caller who always ranted at Art I wonder? And I wonder what Art thought later of Gingrich after Art celebrated the Republican Revolution so much....)

Catsmile

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 20, 2014, 05:12:29 PM
Well actually, if you want to talk about India specifically, the lefties at the world bank and the UN ran amok in the 70's sterilizing just about anyone they could find. In 1975, Robert S. McNamara (Yes, Kennedy and Johnson's Secretary of Defense), then head of the World Bank, forced Indira Ghandi to institute sustainable population initiatives within India making forced sterilization, especially of women, a condition of water use, farming, rationing, pay raises, medical care and a great many other things including rickshaw licenses.

Do go to India and ask one of the +- 20 million people that were sterilized under the auspices of 'sustainability' if it's anecdotal.
I personally don't condone such actions.
Seems most people didn't condone it as well so they stopped that program, even your use of past tense indicates so.
Yeah the world bank a heaven for liberals, as is the UN.  ::)
Wow, I didn't know the world was so full liberals.
How is it just a bunch of lefties running such programs?
Seems you just pull out of thin air what left and right is.
Solely based on if you like it its right, if you don't like it its left.

How is sterilization killing people?
Is it your view that life begins at the thought or possibility of conception?
Hey if they didn't want to join the program they didn't have too.
They had the freedom to do other things to avoid being sterilized.
They just had to bootstrap themselves out of it, it's that simple. ;)

And you just dodged the point of GMO in my post, a current event.
With a non sequitur of a dead program from the past.
GMO must be a mature science, it will save us all.
Unlike climate science which is immature, and can't be trusted.
According to you at least.  ::)
Good thing you can guide all of our minds into your free of thought zone.  ::)

Adding CO2 is only one part of increased plant growth, a few other factors have to increase as well. Even when all those other required elements are met, plants do a little thing called "transpiration" (to give off water vapor through the stomata). Increased plant growth equals increases in transpiration, which equals more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor can increase the greenhouse effect.

Transpiration is influenced by, humidity, temperature, wind, sunlight, water in the soil, even temperature of the soil. Science/man can't control most of those factors in outdoor environments. Leading to uneven CO2 uptake. Even if the above factors are controlled there are many more factors that need to be controlled/optimized. Most of which science doesn't completely understand yet. Much less know how to control, even in the lab.

If Science even knew half of how photosynthesis worked... they would be using that as a means of producing and storing energy. Making fusion almost obsolete, relegating it to pick up the slack. But alas both ideas are just a pipe dream as it stands.

Meanwhile more energy is stored by the increasing greenhouse effect, man made or not.
Science does know for a fact that more energy can create more powerful outcomes.
Climate change will cost humanity one way or another. It doesn't matter if it's man made, or a natural planet cycle. And it will cost many lives in the process. The weather doesn't care if they lean left or right, or live in the 1st world or 3rd world, disbelieve or know for a fact.

Man made "trees", anyone??  :-\

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: Catsmile on April 20, 2014, 09:22:33 PM
I personally don't condone such actions.
Seems most people didn't condone it as well so they stopped that program, even your use of past tense indicates so.

In India it did only after being revealed as an atrocity. It didn't stop the practice in other third world countries. There are much more recent examples and overtly liberal organizations continue to advocate sterilization, most famously Planned Parenthood.

Quote
Yeah the world bank a heaven for liberals, as is the UN.  ::)

Generally speaking, yes. Especially the UN, the vast majority of their environmental and sustainability programs derive specifically from liberal ideology and are run by liberals. McNamara was no Republican, he had been an office-holding democrat.

Quote
How is it just a bunch of lefties running such programs?
Seems you just pull out of thin air what left and right is.
Solely based on if you like it its right, if you don't like it its left.

If a program derives from leftwing ideology, such as environmentalism, then you wouldn't want it run by a libertarian.

Quote
How is sterilization killing people?

It's not, but if you want death we can explore the environmentalist-pushed and UN mandated DDT ban that condemned thousands in Africa to needless death by malaria only to find that it was based on questionable science decades later. At worst, leftwing environmentalists traded the lives of human beings for endangered species based on a lie. At best it was a huge mistake. Either way, malaria eradication was seriously and needlessly compromised for years and the death toll was enormous.

Quote
Is it your view that life begins at the thought or possibility of conception?

I believe that life begins at copulation. The resultant dividing cells are clearly living.

Quote
Hey if they didn't want to join the program they didn't have too.
They had the freedom to do other things to avoid being sterilized.
They just had to bootstrap themselves out of it, it's that simple. ;)

Well, it doesn't surprise me that you'd excuse highly coercive sterilization.

Quote
And you just dodged the point of GMO in my post, a current event.
With a non sequitur of a dead program from the past.
GMO must be a mature science, it will save us all.
Unlike climate science which is immature, and can't be trusted.
According to you at least.  ::)
Good thing you can guide all of our minds into your free of thought zone.  ::)

GMO is a field within a science rather than a discipline in itself. I've seen nothing to indicate that genetics is an immature science that needs to stifle skepticism to exist like climate science does. I see no reason why GMO development is a bad thing, and it's going to be necessary if you we are to feed a planet with a growing population.

Quote
Adding CO2 is only one part of increased plant growth, a few other factors have to increase as well. Even when all those other required elements are met, plants do a little thing called "transpiration" (to give off water vapor through the stomata). Increased plant growth equals increases in transpiration, which equals more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor can increase the greenhouse effect.

Alright, what kind of numbers are we talking about? How much of an increase in water vapor would we see, and what amount of it would be dangerous?

Quote
Transpiration is influenced by, humidity, temperature, wind, sunlight, water in the soil, even temperature of the soil. Science/man can't control most of those factors in outdoor environments. Leading to uneven CO2 uptake. Even if the above factors are controlled there are many more factors that need to be controlled/optimized. Most of which science doesn't completely understand yet. Much less know how to control, even in the lab.

Sounds like study is needed. I'm all for it. However, I'm skeptical of the water vapor claim. I'm uncertain that enough of a difference would be made through respiration given that there doesn't seem to be a correlating effect seen with the rise of irrigation which presumably should have increased the water evaporation profile of the planet in a similar way. While water vapor is very much a greenhouse gas, I don't know what numbers would be needed to change its profile in atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. Do you have any studies or papers on this that I can peruse?

Quote
If Science even knew half of how photosynthesis worked... they would be using that as a means of producing storing energy. Making fusion almost obsolete, relegating it to pick up the slack. But alas both ideas are just a pipe dream as it stands.

Oh I think they have a good understanding of photosynthesis. But I don't think it would be anything close to a promising energy source. It seems to be a relatively inefficient process when compared to fusing atoms. I mean if plants were delivering deadly electric shocks, perhaps, but they aren't.


Quote
Meanwhile more energy is stored by the increasing greenhouse effect, man made or not.
Science does know for a fact that more energy can create more powerful outcomes.
Climate change will cost humanity one way or another. It doesn't matter if it's man made, or a natural planet cycle. And it will cost many lives in the process. The weather doesn't care if they lean left or right, or live in the 1st world or 3rd world, disbelieve or know for a fact.

Trouble is, it doesn't seem to be doing that. Instead we have a bunch of climate scientists scratching their heads wondering why the hurricane seasons have been so mild lately in contradiction to their projections. Of course anomalies can occur and we may yet see worse hurricanes, but mistakes and bad projections can also easily occur.

Quote
Man made "trees", anyone??  :-\


Brings up the idea of the use of artificial carbon sinks. One of the most interesting aspects of leftwing thought on climate change is the almost total absence of any talk of artificial means of controlling climate change.

Yorkshire pud

With thanks to Micky Dolenz with his head indulging in certain herbal remedies....

"Why don't you hate who I hate, kill who I kill to be free?"

Just sayin.

Jackstar

Quote from: albrecht on April 20, 2014, 05:23:12 PM
According to the UN and US Government it is a narcotic.

Maybe it's only... three-fifths of a narcotic.

Catsmile

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 20, 2014, 10:13:24 PM

Oh I think they have a good understanding of photosynthesis. But I don't think it would be anything close to a promising energy source. It seems to be a relatively inefficient process when compared to fusing atoms. I mean if plants were delivering deadly electric shocks, perhaps, but they aren't.

You thinking something doesn't mean much, or make it a fact.
Just like you think I "excuse highly coercive sterilization", doesn't make it true. The right wing always uses the "bootstrap theory", but it seems you are to dull to catch the irony.

Anything I know, or post won't be credible. I'll let you Google, and cherry pick water vapor data. You seem to be a pro on the outer and inner working of plants. Hell, you should be able to tell me off the top of your head. But it seems you missed transpiration class, do your own homework. I heard somewhere selenium can work wonders for deficiencies, you should try some.

Just because you have a degree that says "science" on it doesn't make you a scientist, nor does it mean you understand what scientist understand. Making science fiction, and making science fact are very different things.
You should enlighten all of science, with your extensive knowledge. The world needs your genius. Many people are dieing because you waste your talent writing.

All science is in it's infancy understanding the cosmos around us, and how to replicate it. Much less improve on what nature has done. Although mankind is as smart as it has ever been in it's history, for what that's worth. They will laugh in 100 years barring disaster/war.

Photosynthesis is far more efficient and "green", than anything man has ever made concerning energy production and storage, or materials manufacturing, period. Plants have been using fusion for billions of years. Even as "inefficient" as it is in nature. Once science has an intricate knowledge of how photosynthesis works we will be able to bend it to our will/purposes, and improve upon it in time.

Meanwhile I have worked for, talked to, and befriended real scientist and engineers from around the world. Doing real cutting edge science, some classified. Other intellectual properties can't be discussed, many years after its "public knowledge."
Non disclosures and classified information, makes for tricky discussions.
Since 9/11 most anything dealing with the gov. is classified now, tech more so.
I'm no scientist, nor do I pretend to be one on the internet.

Anyway... I'll let our science pro keep hacking out science fantasy pulp, as science fact hoping the unwashed masses will buy it.


Please tell us more how you will use fusion in 30 years.
We've been using it for billions of years.
Silly primates, who do they think they are? Such newbies.  ;)

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: Catsmile on April 21, 2014, 03:28:38 AM
You thinking something doesn't mean much, or make it a fact.
Just like you think I "excuse highly coercive sterilization", doesn't make it true. The right wing always uses the "bootstrap theory", but it seems you are to dull to catch the irony.

Except that we can head to a textbook and see a pretty damned thorough understanding of photosynthesis. And yes, you were excusing it.

Quote
Anything I know, or post won't be credible. I'll let you Google, and cherry pick water vapor data. You seem to be a pro on the outer and inner working of plants. Hell, you should be able to tell me off the top of your head. But it seems you missed transpiration class, do your own homework. I heard somewhere selenium can work wonders for deficiencies, you should try some.

You could be credible, that's why I asked for the studies instead of dismissing it. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, a very efficient one. But I couldn't find much on google as far as meat and potatoes research that projected plants as eventually becoming an environmental problem. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist so if you've got something, I'm open to it.

Stranger things have happened, the recovery of the ozone hole is considered a threat in accelerating the effects of warming in Antarctica.

Quote
Just because you have a degree that says "science" on it doesn't make you a scientist, nor does it mean you understand what scientist understand. Making science fiction, and making science fact are very different things.

Oh I have a pretty good understanding, I held a job in my field before my books began producing a living. I'm not a climate scientist, of course, but when I see skepticism being suspended and subject to derision I know that I'm not looking at the scientific method functioning normally. So how do you get around that?

Quote
You should enlighten all of science, with your extensive knowledge. The world needs your genius. Many people are dieing because you waste your talent writing.

Yeah, yeah, I know it sucks when presented with facts that overturn your worldview and lashing out emotively is the liberal thing to do. I just wish you guys wouldn't write policy on that kind of bullshit.

Quote
All science is in it's infancy understanding the cosmos around us, and how to replicate it. Much less improve on what nature has done. Although mankind is as smart as it has ever been in it's history, for what that's worth. They will laugh in 100 years barring disaster/war.

Well, they may be laughing at climate science. But I think you seriously under assess the rest of it. We're a hundred years past Einstein's mass and energy equivalence and relativity and neither is a laughing matter. We're hundreds of years past Newton, yet his work remains the basis of sending up a rocket or determining orbital mechanics--no laughing there. The same goes for Maxwell's equations, quantum theory, Heisenberg, the list goes on. Yes, there are many things science does not yet understand, but it's not in some kind of dark ages.

Quote
Photosynthesis is far more efficient and "green", than anything man has ever made concerning energy production and storage, or materials manufacturing, period. Plants have been using fusion for billions of years. Even as "inefficient" as it is in nature. Once science has an intricate knowledge of how photosynthesis works we will be able to bend it to our will/purposes, and improve upon it in time.

It looks like a photo-sensitive organic chemical reaction to me. I don't see how chemical reactions could hold anything close to the amount of power released by atomic fusion. You're asking me to accept that harnessing the power of the cucumber is somehow equivalent to harnessing the power of the sun. I think the sun is a better bet, but good luck with that. Incidentally, to produce energy on a global scale with photosynthetic reactions, how do are you going to get past your own respiration problem? It seems sort of contradictory.

Quote
Meanwhile I have worked for, talked to, and befriended real scientist and engineers from around the world. Doing real cutting edge science, some classified. Other intellectual properties can't be discussed, many years after its "public knowledge."
Non disclosures and classified information, makes for tricky discussions.
Since 9/11 most anything dealing with the gov. is classified now, tech more so.
I'm no scientist, nor do I pretend to be one on the internet.

That's generally true, yes. But it's more of a matter of technologies that if known would turn out rather mundane and disappointing in nature. Stealth materials, better missile guidance systems, things like that. They're not working on opening up wormholes or planetary defense grids to keep out the greys. 

Quote
Anyway... I'll let our science pro keep hacking out science fantasy pulp, as science fact hoping the unwashed masses will buy it.

Plant power over fusion is better fantasy than I can write. You should try getting into the biz and write a novel.

Quote
Please tell us more how you will use fusion in 30 years.

Pretty easy really. The first step was the achievement of a net gain from fusion in US labs here over the last few years. ITER is the next step in producing larger net gains. ITER's successor is planned to be the first functioning fusion power generation plant. The time frame is generally agreed by the scientists themselves to be about 30 years. Since fusion neither produces significant radioactive waste, no greenhouse gases nor can it fail with catastrophic results, all it can do is produce limitless electricity. That will prove globally quite attractive and be implemented widely, solving the energy crisis and the pollution crisis permanently. The technology can be freely given even to rogue nations, because no bomb can be made from it without first possessing a nuclear fission bomb. 

Quote
We've been using it for billions of years.
Silly primates, who do they think they are? Such newbies.  ;)


Actually, you've been using solar radiation produced by fusion, not fusion itself.

NowhereInTime

More proof of conservative "principles" in action:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/opinion/wage-theft-across-the-board.html?hp&rref=opinion

For those who don't want to read (it is a short article) the most telling statistic from the Labor Department was that more than $280 million was recovered for unpaid employees in 2012; more than twice the amount of money stolen in gas station, convenience store, bank and street robberies in Paper*Boy's "inner cities" combined.

That and the gov't says most wage action goes unenforced because of limited staff and, surprise, surprise, several states have used budget cuts to defund wage enforcement activity. (Want to wager what part of the country those states are from?  A hint; they surrendered.)

Also note in the article the collusion between Google ("Do No Evil"), Apple, Intel and Adobe, who used the Invisible Hand of the "Free" Market to give each other a hale and hearty wrap-around.

Love to see SciFi and Papes defend this.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: NowhereInTime on April 22, 2014, 12:58:07 PM
More proof of conservative "principles" in action:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/opinion/wage-theft-across-the-board.html?hp&rref=opinion

For those who don't want to read (it is a short article) the most telling statistic from the Labor Department was that more than $280 million was recovered for unpaid employees in 2012; more than twice the amount of money stolen in gas station, convenience store, bank and street robberies in Paper*Boy's "inner cities" combined.

That and the gov't says most wage action goes unenforced because of limited staff and, surprise, surprise, several states have used budget cuts to defund wage enforcement activity. (Want to wager what part of the country those states are from?  A hint; they surrendered.)

Also note in the article the collusion between Google ("Do No Evil"), Apple, Intel and Adobe, who used the Invisible Hand of the "Free" Market to give each other a hale and hearty wrap-around.

Love to see SciFi and Papes defend this.


Except that they're not conservative principles. Companies colluding to intentionally depress wages does not constitute a free labor market. It's the exact opposite of our principles, it's collusion not competition.

That said, your policies caused this. In times past corporations headhunted each other's employees. They did that because those employees were valuable and it was necessary if you wanted to get the top people in the field. Now, software engineering is becoming oversaturated like everything else and the corporations know that there are now more than enough top people in the field for everyone. They don't have to head hunt now and they can afford to collude to depress wages. That's what happens when your nation's policy is to create as many college degrees as it possibly can. You've educated too many software engineers, and your liberal views are part and parcel to wage theft.

Anyway, they will either win their suit or not. If they win, good for them, it wasn't a free labor market anyway. If they lose, well, it's your system. Your people are in power and have been for some time so you own it.

onan

Homestead Strike or The Battle of Blair Mountain, neither one were caused by liberal policies. But they did help to intrench liberal ideas about corporate mindsets.

It is never a conservative principle to cause harm, yet it happens and if not purposeful, certainly with indifference. Like the Deepwater Horizon Spill (spill, just like a glass of milk). The oversight agency that was to monitor off shore wells was so gutted by the last administration that it was impossible to do any oversight.

So yeah, you as a conservative want to do no harm. As a group of board members... not so much.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: onan on April 23, 2014, 04:13:00 AM
Homestead Strike or The Battle of Blair Mountain, neither one were caused by liberal policies. But they did help to intrench liberal ideas about corporate mindsets.

It is never a conservative principle to cause harm, yet it happens and if not purposeful, certainly with indifference. Like the Deepwater Horizon Spill (spill, just like a glass of milk). The oversight agency that was to monitor off shore wells was so gutted by the last administration that it was impossible to do any oversight.

So yeah, you as a conservative want to do no harm. As a group of board members... not so much.

The problem appears to be solved. They have a method of getting their grievances in court, and I can't for the life of me see them losing their case. Collusion is not conservative. It's simply criminal activity. There is no conservative issue within this, it's a group of mostly openly liberal corporate heads screwing white collar software developers and going to a court ran under a mostly liberal administration. Exactly where is the problem here?

As far as harm, sure, Bush screwed up a whole lot more than just oil industry oversight. The guy was a shill, a figurehead manipulated by Darth Cheney into any number of serious screw ups, the biggest of which was the Iraq war and the needless death and destruction it caused. I didn't vote for him, nor did I consider him anything but a liberal old boy's club republican. Prescription drug program? What the hell was conservative about that?

But there's a difference here. Republicans haven't been winning because their people aren't turning out. That's healthy. It makes them rethink. Liberals wont do the same.

I've shown many instances, and can show many more, where liberal ideology stomps all over the third world in the name of environmentalism and sustainability. It always falls on deaf ears, of course.

Contributory factors like job field oversaturation due to liberal educational policies regarding college education also gets ignored as though the problem could be fixed without confronting the causes of the problem.

Liberalism has become an ideology that holds it's hands to it's ears and babbles about century-old dead political issues in order to not hear discussion of its own shortfalls and the problems it causes. Well, being the ideology currently in power, you'd think now would be the time to question it.



NowhereInTime

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 22, 2014, 08:14:19 PM

Except that they're not conservative principles. Companies colluding to intentionally depress wages does not constitute a free labor market. It's the exact opposite of our principles, it's collusion not competition.

That said, your policies caused this. In times past corporations headhunted each other's employees. They did that because those employees were valuable and it was necessary if you wanted to get the top people in the field. Now, software engineering is becoming oversaturated like everything else and the corporations know that there are now more than enough top people in the field for everyone. They don't have to head hunt now and they can afford to collude to depress wages. That's what happens when your nation's policy is to create as many college degrees as it possibly can. You've educated too many software engineers, and your liberal views are part and parcel to wage theft.

Anyway, they will either win their suit or not. If they win, good for them, it wasn't a free labor market anyway. If they lose, well, it's your system. Your people are in power and have been for some time so you own it.
You're daft.  So, a bunch of executives colluding to preclude and exclude competitive hiring of top talent is a Liberal problem?  You really need new textbooks.
I love how you backdoor your insane "overeducation" clarion into this conversation.  The problem isn't too few jobs or too many applicants; it's that your ilk decided to actively prevent labor from exercising its right to choose.  That's conservatism in a nutshell, your conflation aside.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod