kevindsingleton
Silver Member
Looks like we're popping them out in advance, even!
A Credible Global warming Scientist!
- Thread starter FallbrookFarmer
- Start date
- Views: 29839
- Status
Looks like we're popping them out in advance, even!
That has to be tricky.
I know I am trying my dangest to raise the population. :laughing:
kevindsingleton
Silver Member
That was much easier than actually defending global warming, I suppose.
It was you that brought up politics.
tallyho8
Super Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- Messages
- 5,258
- Tractor
- Kubota L4400, Kubota ZD326
It's raining here and I'm bored so after reading accusations from others about who is trying to get the thread closed down, I decided to look up some useless statistics.
These statistics prove absolutely NOTHING and are not mean to demean anyone but I am sure that someone could try to use these statistics to try to prove or disprove their point somehow.
I looked up statistics on the main posters in this thread to see how many threads each one has posted in in the last year that has been locked by the moderators. I only counted people with hundreds of posts. This does not mean in any way that these posters are responsible for the thread being closed, just useless trivia, I'm bored. :confused2:
charlz - 3
Fallbrookfarmer -5
Tallyho8 - 6
dcyrilc - 7
Chuck52 - 10
brin - 15
dave1949 - 16
Surely some of you can use these facts to help prove AGW.
These statistics prove absolutely NOTHING and are not mean to demean anyone but I am sure that someone could try to use these statistics to try to prove or disprove their point somehow.
I looked up statistics on the main posters in this thread to see how many threads each one has posted in in the last year that has been locked by the moderators. I only counted people with hundreds of posts. This does not mean in any way that these posters are responsible for the thread being closed, just useless trivia, I'm bored. :confused2:
charlz - 3
Fallbrookfarmer -5
Tallyho8 - 6
dcyrilc - 7
Chuck52 - 10
brin - 15
dave1949 - 16
Surely some of you can use these facts to help prove AGW.
charlz
Elite Member
Just came across this, pretty funny no matter who you are Mann threatened to sue the creators for using his likeness so there are other, re-made versions but this is the original.
YouTube - Censoring The Decrease in Global Temperatures
BTW here is a link to one of the graphs in the video. Note it shows CO2 continuing to climb yet temperatures are going sideways and maybe down. Doesn't seem to be much of a 'lock step' relationship. The big peak on the left is the 'Super El Nino' of 1998 where the record high temps were noted.
This graphs shows the 'Super El Nino' pretty well as a big anomaly.
Mann threatened to sue the creators for using his likeness so there are other, re-made versions but this is the original.YouTube - Censoring The Decrease in Global Temperatures
BTW here is a link to one of the graphs in the video. Note it shows CO2 continuing to climb yet temperatures are going sideways and maybe down. Doesn't seem to be much of a 'lock step' relationship. The big peak on the left is the 'Super El Nino' of 1998 where the record high temps were noted.
This graphs shows the 'Super El Nino' pretty well as a big anomaly.
Chuck52
Veteran Member
Brin,
I would hardly expect to be in the majority when discussing these topics in this forum. I think a poll of the TBN users would find that self-described conservatives are a strong majority. So, if you are talking about the number of folks here who are cheering on the conservative side of this discussion, well of course you win that vote. On the other hand, if you are talking about the data (I won't use the term fact here as then we'd be in the interpretation mode) then your side has no clear winner IMHO. Simply repeating old talking points from Fox and Friends, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. is indeed very effective in eventually causing thinking individuals to go elsewhere. Conservative talk radio and TV are very popular because they know what their audience wishes to be told and that black and white interpretations are always best. It seems to me that liberals tend to see the shades of gray that are reality. My contributions to these discussions have never intentionally been to PO conservatives; I have tried to present my interpretation of the data based on my experience as an academic scientist, while admitting that I have no direct expertise in the area.
If it makes you happy to think of me as some wimpy fool who avoids your rapier wit, enjoy yourself. I simply get tired, after a while, of talking to brick walls. On the other hand, I have a wide enough acquaintance that I know a number of conservatives who share some of my views, so I don't think in terms of "typical conservatives". You might think about expanding your experience, especially as those of us who consider ourselves to be liberals seem to outnumber you in the general population.
Chuck
I would hardly expect to be in the majority when discussing these topics in this forum. I think a poll of the TBN users would find that self-described conservatives are a strong majority. So, if you are talking about the number of folks here who are cheering on the conservative side of this discussion, well of course you win that vote. On the other hand, if you are talking about the data (I won't use the term fact here as then we'd be in the interpretation mode) then your side has no clear winner IMHO. Simply repeating old talking points from Fox and Friends, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. is indeed very effective in eventually causing thinking individuals to go elsewhere. Conservative talk radio and TV are very popular because they know what their audience wishes to be told and that black and white interpretations are always best. It seems to me that liberals tend to see the shades of gray that are reality. My contributions to these discussions have never intentionally been to PO conservatives; I have tried to present my interpretation of the data based on my experience as an academic scientist, while admitting that I have no direct expertise in the area.
If it makes you happy to think of me as some wimpy fool who avoids your rapier wit, enjoy yourself. I simply get tired, after a while, of talking to brick walls. On the other hand, I have a wide enough acquaintance that I know a number of conservatives who share some of my views, so I don't think in terms of "typical conservatives". You might think about expanding your experience, especially as those of us who consider ourselves to be liberals seem to outnumber you in the general population.
Chuck
SPYDERLK
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2006
- Messages
- 12,568
- Location
- VA
- Tractor
- JD2010, Kubota3450,2550, Mahindra 7520 w FEL w Skid Steer QC w/Tilt Tatch, & BH, BX1500
I am amazed at how effective unbalanced views can be at diffusing more balanced ones. This is what Science has to overcome in getting to the truth.
larry.
larry.
charlz
Elite Member
So I looked around a little bit:
Looks like population growth and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations follow each other pretty close.
What still remains to be proven is increased CO2 is the cause of rising temperatures. Based on some of the previous graphs I have posted that does not appear to be the case.
Willl
Elite Member
Simple,,,,we just quit exhaling.
rekees4300
Elite Member
A mere drop in the bucket
rekees4300
Elite Member
That's a brilliant win-win solution ... decrease CO2 and the population at the same time! :thumbsup:
rekees4300
Elite Member
That number did look a tad suspicions :drink:
brin
Super Member
It's raining here and I'm bored so after reading accusations from others about who is trying to get the thread closed down, I decided to look up some useless statistics.
These statistics prove absolutely NOTHING and are not mean to demean anyone but I am sure that someone could try to use these statistics to try to prove or disprove their point somehow.
I looked up statistics on the main posters in this thread to see how many threads each one has posted in in the last year that has been locked by the moderators. I only counted people with hundreds of posts. This does not mean in any way that these posters are responsible for the thread being closed, just useless trivia, I'm bored. :confused2:
charlz - 3
Fallbrookfarmer -5
Tallyho8 - 6
dcyrilc - 7
Chuck52 - 10
brin - 15
dave1949 - 16
Surely some of you can use these facts to help prove AGW.
Tally ---You nailed it..It is useless trivia..If TBN wants us to post less often I am sure they will let us know...
sld
Veteran Member
Awesome thread!
Kevin, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I never try to bash liberals but it just blows me away that they can be so passionate about being so wrong.
Have no fear about the population. Famines, plagues and natural disasters will keep the balance in check and there is nothing we can do about it.
Kevin, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I never try to bash liberals but it just blows me away that they can be so passionate about being so wrong.
Have no fear about the population. Famines, plagues and natural disasters will keep the balance in check and there is nothing we can do about it.
I really don't think liberals hate all corporations, just the ones that do bad stuff like Bechtel trying to charge people for rainwater in Bolivia or BP lying about oil spills and having their CEO say things like " I need my life back" in regard to the Gulf Oil spill. Nasty stuff like that. Sure some liberals are hypocrites and use fossil fuels while espousing their evils. But some of them do tend to drive more fuel efficient cars and try to save energy but it takes a lot of effort. Our whole society is base on the auto and the other energy efficient technologies are not there yet but they will be. It's coming.
I don't really think all conservatives just think about their bank accounts and whether someone is trying to get their money so they can't do what ever the **** they want. Some of them actually do care about other people and the environment.
It's just not all that black and white or clear cut as people on the radio or some in this thread would have you believe.
I saw hand painted sign along a country road in an old photo once that said - "It's your country - don't let the big men take it away from you." Is that liberal or conservative? I think it could be either.
I don't really think all conservatives just think about their bank accounts and whether someone is trying to get their money so they can't do what ever the **** they want. Some of them actually do care about other people and the environment.
It's just not all that black and white or clear cut as people on the radio or some in this thread would have you believe.
I saw hand painted sign along a country road in an old photo once that said - "It's your country - don't let the big men take it away from you." Is that liberal or conservative? I think it could be either.
Last edited:
kevindsingleton
Silver Member
I'd say it's neither: it's Libertarian.
I'm as liberal on some issues as I am conservative on others. I don't really care which side of the fence you're on, as long as you're not trying to make me pay for your fabricated calamities, or trying to curtail my individual liberty.
Beyond that, I'm pretty easy to get along with.
kevindsingleton
Silver Member
I think, where the leftists lose me, is when they identify mankind as the problem, and insist that I change my life to accommodate their vision. If people are the root cause of all the world's troubles, and leftists make up half the population, then I think the answer becomes fairly obvious!
dcyrilc
Super Member
I think, where the leftists lose me, is when they identify mankind as the problem, and insist that I change my life to accommodate their vision. If people are the root cause of all the world's troubles, and leftists make up half the population, then I think the answer becomes fairly obvious!
They're half the problem?
dave1949
Super Star Member
I live in a direct gain passive solar house. I augment the sunshine with about one cord firewood, that yes, I harvest from my lot. We have 40 mpg Honda Civic and a 20 mpg Ford Sport Trac. We drive the Honda when the weather allows. Our electric usage averages about 315 KWH per month. I would never use pesticides or herbicides on my lot. I use natural composts and fertilizers. I don't buy water in plastic bottles. I take my own reusable bags to the store. So, I don't feel like I am a supporter of the environment in name only.
In a previous post you listed many successful advances in environmental issues. The vast majority of those improvements are the result of 'liberal' environmentalist efforts. I would say the liberals are achieving their goals many times and you are very wrong about saying they never have. For the clean air and water we do have, you can thank a liberal.
Food plots are an environmental joke. They primarily exist to favor hunted game over any others. I have nothing against hunting. If you want to do nature a favor, help it foster native plants. I can't believe you mention food plots, most begin with a good dose of Roundup. You wouldn't have to worry about flyway stopping areas if they weren't drained and built upon. There is a huge difference between your concept of environmentalism and mine.
I am not trying to pigeonhole folks on a liberal/conservative basis. There are a number of posters who take regular shots at liberals, as Chuck52 mentioned, this site is rich in conservatives. It's only fair to question conservative motives if liberals are to be singled out for all the world's ills. No one has offered up any examples of early, strong and lasting conservative support for environmental issues. You just keep bashing liberals while pushing the 'cheap energy at any price' agenda.
The issue of AGW is tightly coupled to environment, energy and global population. The viewpoints and support by various political groups has a lot to do with how effectively energy and environmental issues will be addressed. They cannot be dodged forever and they can't be solved by bashing.
All I am pointing out, is conservative politicians, as a rule, do not support, and usually work against, measures that would improve energy efficiency and protect the environment. It's always 'we cannot afford it, 'it's a job killer' (my personal favorite), or 'it's too soon'. How many Deep Horizon's can we afford? So what motives would you ascribe to folks who fight against environmental issues?
In AGW terms, many believe whatever humans are doing, it can't make any difference, or they resort to mysticism. So, how much human input would make a difference? Who has that answer? How will we know when too much is too much?
Dave.
Loren49
Veteran Member
Good post!
If we could avoid the use of the words "liberal" or "conservative" etc., which mean very different things to different people and instead state the more specific view on a given policy, we would have more useful discussion. Name calling doesn't accomplish much.
Loren
If we could avoid the use of the words "liberal" or "conservative" etc., which mean very different things to different people and instead state the more specific view on a given policy, we would have more useful discussion. Name calling doesn't accomplish much.
Loren
- Status
