Jump to content

***Official OT MMCC/Global Warming Thread***

Recommended Posts

niptuck    74

Gov'ts like power, Moar power...here's how they get it

Step One) If 'scientists' say the world is ending due to Man' behavior then Gov'ts can justify taking more control over man and coorporations.

Step 2) Gov'ts control who gets the life blood of the salaries of scientists known as GRANT MONEY

Step 3) Give lotsa grant money to the Universities and scientists that are more likly to say man is ruining the Earf.

Step 4) Gov'ts take more power from people and coorprations siting the reports that the gov't funded

Step 5) People (mostly democrats) are too dumb and dishonest to realize this or more likly....the Participation Trophy Generation PREFERS the nanny state anyways and therefore embraces the gov't bing in total control of their lives and this is the means to that end.

Step 6) one world gov't

Step 7) dive kids to school in my extended Escalade and look forward to smashing the fuck out of a Prius if the elbow patch jacket wearing douch bag driver spills his latte and swerves into my lane!! If it's a woman driver there is no doubt she has a full bush...would still 'smash' ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willywoo    235

lol because trucks. Got a pre emission f250 7.3liter for my dog to ride in. Don't want dog dirt in the suburban. Because trucks. freedom!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

Gov'ts like power, Moar power...here's how they get it

Step One) If 'scientists' say the world is ending due to Man' behavior then Gov'ts can justify taking more control over man and coorporations.

Step 2) Gov'ts control who gets the life blood of the salaries of scientists known as GRANT MONEY

Step 3) Give lotsa grant money to the Universities and scientists that are more likly to say man is ruining the Earf.

Step 4) Gov'ts take more power from people and coorprations siting the reports that the gov't funded

Step 5) People (mostly democrats) are too dumb and dishonest to realize this or more likly....the Participation Trophy Generation PREFERS the nanny state anyways and therefore embraces the gov't bing in total control of their lives and this is the means to that end.

Step 6) one world gov't

Step 7) dive kids to school in my extended Escalade and look forward to smashing the fuck out of a Prius if the elbow patch jacket wearing douch bag driver spills his latte and swerves into my lane!! If it's a woman driver there is no doubt she has a full bush...would still 'smash' ....

so all gov't, even the repubs who say it is a hoax are part of this plan to force scientists to find supporting info of mmgw so they can control everyone and all the liberals are happy about this. its an interesting world you live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GLobal warming is popular in popular culture now. Every company, politician is jumping on the band wagon. Pretend you are doing something for the environment. Good public relations. Take a popular rental car site, think it's Alamo or Budget, when you go to check out they ask you for options like child seat, insurance, prepaid gas and yes optional CARBON OFFSET fee. LMAO. Seriously the Climate Industrial Complex has reached maximum velocity. The greenies did a good job pushing this agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

I believe we are polluting our ecosystem. I believe there is enough evidence to show that man is affecting climate.

I also believe there are people protecting their interests and using fear to capitalize. People gonna people.

It's been documented over these 166 pages that getting a 100K grant to study the mating rituals of honey bees is hard to come by but 1M grant to study how climate change is affecting the mating ritual of honey bees will be given if enough fear is generated.

This conversation would move along so much better if we could admit man is shitting where we eat and possibly screwing with our ecosystem but also using that possibility to profit.

Instead we get either there is no proof we are hurting the ecosystem on one side and the other side claiming that only the skeptics are in it for profit while the doomsayers are all altruistic. Gotta be the most feels argument on the net right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

Also, saying there is a 36% probability that 2015 was the hottest record on year means exactly that. It doesn't mean that it definitely was, it doesn't mean that we can't say that. It just means that it most likely was. Either stance some are taking in this thread shows how uninformed about probability and stats people are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, saying there is a 36% probability that 2015 was the hottest record on year means exactly that. It doesn't mean that it definitely was, it doesn't mean that we can't say that. It just means that it most likely was. Either stance some are taking in this thread shows how uninformed about probability and stats people are.

No. When you say that 2015 was the hottest year on record that means it was 100% the hottest year on record. It is not correct, most likely like you said there is a 36% chance. Words matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

yea, there are obv people taking advantage of the whatever support of global warming and using it for PR or selfish purposes. to be as cynical as Rich and Nip is ridiculous tho.

there is an agenda on both sides and tons of money is spent trying to discount any effects as well.

at least Exxon has at least got on board and decided not to deny its happening and try to look into some changes they can make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe we are polluting our ecosystem. I believe there is enough evidence to show that man is affecting climate.

Awesome. Could you share that evidence with us. To start it might help if we knew how climate changed even if you took man out of the equation

As it stands now, climate is static in the eyes of climate scientists. Then along came man and screwed it all up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at least Exxon has at least got on board and decided not to deny its happening and try to look into some changes they can make.

LOL they learned it from others and you fell into their PR trap.

Please call me Dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a month, I'm going to have to change my tune and learn to play along.

"Yes, that global warming is horrible, we need to do something"

"Such a wonderful job we did in Paris, wasn't enough, but baby steps"

"Boy that TSLA and Musk are sure changing things."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AmSlim22    0

so instead of thinking that science may be on to something, you think it is all a PR stunt to get gov't more control of the people.

everyone is in on it, including the guys in congress who carry snowballs into the Capitol building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so instead of thinking that science may be on to something, you think it is all a PR stunt to get gov't more control of the people.

everyone is in on it, including the guys in congress who carry snowballs into the Capitol building?

They might be on to something. We just don't have enough reliable data yet to make a determination. It has become a popular movement though, that you can't deny, much more then a scientific fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

Awesome. Could you share that evidence with us. To start it might help if we knew how climate changed even if you took man out of the equation

As it stands now, climate is static in the eyes of climate scientists. Then along came man and screwed it all up.

Meh, we can go back and forth with evidence from both sides and spin our wheels.

Mine is based on feels. Logically, I don't see how the amount of pollution we produce can have a healthy outcome. My feels and logic decided that it's scientifically proven that pollution has shown to have a negative affect on our water and breathable air, and that we can extrapolate it to not being healthy for the ecosystem in general. It's not a large logical leap, it would be a larger one to say it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh, we can go back and forth with evidence from both sides and spin our wheels.

Mine is based on feels. Logically, I don't see how the amount of pollution we produce can have a healthy outcome. My feels and logic decided that it's scientifically proven that pollution has shown to have a negative affect on our water and breathable air, and that we can extrapolate it to not being healthy for the ecosystem in general. It's not a large logical leap, it would be a larger one to say it's not.

Ok so now ecosystem and climate are same?

Hey I agree with you. Pollution is bad for the environment. I made my living in my 20/30s working for environmental companies like chem waste management.

Just remember: the solution to pollution is dilution

Inside joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

I guess I also need to state that trying to stop global warming is a fools errand and our efforts would be better spent on adaptation of our species.

If we stopped dangerous pollution instead of just charging some of them more so we can give some to our buddies, that effort alone would more be than any "solutions" presented thus far.

I'm more concerned with governments trying to manipulate behavior and money flow than I am with oceans rising 2centimeters. The logic that says people suck and are destroying the planet for profit so we need people to fix that is bewildering to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL
Also, saying there is a 36% probability that 2015 was the hottest record on year means exactly that. It doesn't mean that it definitely was, it doesn't mean that we can't say that. It just means that it most likely was. Either stance some are taking in this thread shows how uninformed about probability and stats people are.

NASA didn't say a word about 36%. don't call me uninformed when you didn't read it. we already have RichardHurtz for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

NASA admits a margin of error in measurements that you seem to not want to give. Why is that Hank?

What are you hoping to accomplish by taking the stance of 100% definitely compared to most likely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL
NASA admits a margin of error in measurements that you seem to not want to give. Why is that Hank?

I haven't said a word about margin of error. it's not necessary because NASA already converted it to a more useful number: a 94% chance it was the hottest year on record. just because Richard was droning on about MoE and how he's smarter than NASA doesn't mean he deserves a reply. this is just you guys being disingenuous, like you're the only shmucks who took stats in college. sure, dude. please educate us what those weird pluses and minuses mean.

Lol

Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

I live in Michigan. Can someone please tell me how the great Lakes were formed?

Remember when that farmer found woolly mammoth bones on his farm near Chelsea? An Oklahoma bulldozer recently dug up a mammoth skull.

Unrelated, just thought it was cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL

you come in here calling me misinformed and you quoted the 2014 report, not the 2015 one I posted. it's just such a silly thread. I should go back to ignoring it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ginwilly    0

you come in here calling me misinformed and you quoted the 2014 report, not the 2015 one I posted. it's just such a silly thread. I should go back to ignoring it.

Yep, the 36% was 2014, sorry about that. The 2015 report says the readings from the continental US were lower last year than 2014, but the probability that 2015 was hotter overall is much higher.

It's not a definite no matter how much you want to make it out to be, it's still a most likely.

If you understood margin of error you would in no way make the claims you made as an absolute. So instead of thinking you were dishonestly pushing an agenda, I gave you the benefit of the doubt of not grasping what probabilities mean.

I'm glad you at least cleared that up though. Gov bless your efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL

never mind. too much nonsense to wade through. niptuck, tell us more about how glaciers existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Hank H1LL   

Guest Hank H1LL

lol oh, is this a "the temperature rose before so greenhouse gases don't contribute" thing? no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


    • Accolades & Cashes

  • Top 10 Ranked Players

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.