Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

If scientists don't believe in global warming they don't get grants


That's a conflict of interest.

It's also why they have been ineffectual in 'selling' their message.


If 'we' don't believe it, its not our fault. Its scientists.


Mark

Yep. The same scientist looking for grant money now were looking for grant money 25 years ago to study global cooling.

I'm not going to give up any of my amenities but I hope enough do so that it won't have to get shoved down their throat.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

And yet another reason why those concerned about climate change seem to lack the credibility they wish they had, engaging in attempts to.belittle rather than actually listening to what the other side has to say and addressing those concerns. All the things I listed, whether or not you agree with them, contribute to the American people's reluctance to embrace the ideas and proposed solutions being offered up by your side. Keep right on ignoring, belittling, etc.i really don't care. But in case you haven't noticed, those giving top priority to climate change aren't exactly dominating in recent elections or in surveys asking average people about things that concern them most. If you are truly worried about climate change and possibly saving things like the GBR, you need to learn how to talk about this much more effectively than you have been. Or you can keep right on with your superior "I'm smarter than everyone else and everyone who disagrees is a redneck idiot" attitude. Your choice.

Like you I'm just an anonymous poster on the forum. If I kissed denier arse and coddled your prejudices and scientific illiteracy, it wouldn't get me any further. You know this.

There are intelligent arguments to be made against drastic action re AGW. Why not make those? Even that greenie-taunting video of Reefs doesn't need to dip into denier mythology to make its point. If you don't want condescension, don't make crap arguments?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Yep. The same scientist looking for grant money now were looking for grant money 25 years ago to study global cooling.

Wrong.

In the 70's science was 6:1 warming:cooling.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

If scientists don't believe in global warming they don't get grants

Wrong.

Spencer and Christie at UAH get all of their research funding from NASA,NOAA and DOE.

Skeptics are also NSF funded. Richard Lindzen alone got over $3,000,000 in NSF awards during his career. Curry, Legates, Pielke Jr., etc. have all had NSF funding.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Wrong.

In the 70's science was 6:1 warming:cooling.

Sorry but it's not wrong. The one out of six scientist were looking for grants to study global cooling. Grant money was given to study both warming and cooling. We don't expect much from our government but we get a whole lot less.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by alansmith

Time will reveal all things is my thinking. I think both sides of the equation for climate change have skeletons in their closet about telling the truth. Isn't that the way of many processes on this planet?

The good thing that has come out of this warming or non warming of our planet is that it has made people more self conscious of how they conduct their lives. As I was rebuilding my deceased father's house I made conscious decisions to insulate heavy all walls and attic so that I would use the least amount of energy possible to warm and cool. I replaced every window with double paned e glass. Upgraded to the most modern furnace you can buy. It has paid off. My electrical/gas bill is approximately 60-80 dollars a month. PGE sends out a report once a month how each home owner is doing compared to other houses in the area. I consistently rate in the top 5%.

I stopped using plastic bags for work. Everything is put into plastic reusable containers. I go shopping now with the big canvas bags. Everything is recycled that is recyclable. I am sure many of you have adopted the same habits. So, in this sense, people are waking up to behaviors that are harmful. Whether that is based on good science or bad science or mother nature's cyclic nature...isn't that a positive effect on human nature that has come about?

Agreed,

I'm sceptical but no harm in being thoughtful. I think both sides present their cases with advantages.

Remember Y2k, the world was ending then too. I think the world loves a good drama and will happily swallow any tail in it's pursuit.

I have no first hand knowledge, as I suspect most don't so we are left to accept or reject information presented to us which can be anything from fact to fabrication. We have no way of knowing what we are being feed.

It's much easier to sell bad news than good news, so I'm more likely to believe it is more fiction than fact but no harm in doing the right thing!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Sorry but it's not wrong. The one out of six scientist were looking for grants to study global cooling. Grant money was given to study both warming and cooling. We don't expect much from our government but we get a whole lot less.

Just exactly how do you expect research to be carried? Satellites are expensive. Drilling for ice cores is expensive. Computer time is expensive.

Maybe we could the fossil fuel industry to pay for research.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Remember Y2k, the world was ending then too. I think the world loves a good drama and will happily swallow any tail in it's pursuit.

I worked in an IT department during Y2K. The 2 digit year did present a problem which was solved.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I worked in an IT department during Y2K. The 2 digit year did present a problem which was solved.

I worked in IT during the Y2K scam. It was very profitable. Fear mongers created a great market for us. I still laugh about it.

[DDup]

Y2K was only partly scam, if that's what you want to call it. The fear-mongering about the world ending, and our appliances and devices turning against us, was a scam.

There was also a whole lot of very real work that needed to be done, updating, patching, and re-writing a mess of computer code to understand that 00 meant 2000 and not 1900. That was not a scam.

[kmacdonald]

The fact is we are all dependent on fossil fuels and it will take a long time to eliminate that dependency. Whatever the effects of that are we will have to live with. (or not)
It's the price of progress. Each generation has inherited problems and this will be one of them that our children will have to deal with. IMHO they will solve it somehow.

[LakeSuperior]

Interesting plot on adjusting data. Read into it what you will. Plenty of reasons given for the adjustments.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by DDup

Y2K was only partly scam, if that's what you want to call it. The fear-mongering about the world ending, and our appliances and devices turning against us, was a scam.

There was also a whole lot of very real work that needed to be done, updating, patching, and re-writing a mess of computer code to understand that 00 meant 2000 and not 1900. That was not a scam.

Yes, code written not to deal with 2000 had to be patched. All software is released before being fully vetted and updates and patches are just part of the game. The Y2K patches were quite trivial though compared to some patches.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

A lot of folks would probably be more receptive to the message of climate change worriers if their solution of choice wasn't mostly to add yet another tax to people are barely getting by as it is. Easy for elites like Gore and Soros, etc. but pretty tough for working people who can barely keep up with their current bills without adding yet another one.

I suppose a tax would not be necessary if we hadn't spent 3 trillion dollars on 2 fronts of a war that changed nothing. I'm just sayin.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for denier bingo! Get out your cards.

• it's a tax grab. check.
• Al Gore! check.
• Soros, elites. Check
• Fudged data! check.
• Rich guys! Limos and jets! Actually this is the Al Gore square again.

So, nobody's completed a row. Where's the other chestnuts? (hint -conspiracy!)

Really happy You and Jack are back..

Originally Posted by MarkJ

If scientists don't believe in global warming they don't get grants
That's a conflict of interest.
It's also why they have been ineffectual in 'selling' their message.
If 'we' don't believe it, its not our fault. Its scientists.
Mark

Oh don't worry Mark...The inverse will happen the next 4 years.

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Wrong.

.

That's not a way to win a discussion. Or to change someones mind.

It just sounds like the rampant wankers who can't 'sell' a viable argument so just stamp their feet like 3 year olds.