patrick.net

indigenous says

landtof says

so you're a big fan of insider trading and money laundering for drug cartels? fascinating.

No, the problem was in the bailouts, not regulation. The propaganda says that the problem was in derivatives not being regulated. But if AIG would have been allowed to fail then there would not have been a problem.

You're both right. If the TBTFs were allowed to fail we would not have the parasitic, FED-backed monopolies skimming money away from the middle-class. And in some cases there was clear cut fraud which should have been prosecuted, but Obummer and his minions abolished the rule of law.

Ok you win, I'm back for another round

landtof says

bdrasin says

Right. So university climate scientists are stupid and corrupt. They couldn't get industry jobs, and are embezzling their grants for personal use.

not what i said, and you are certainly trolling at this point. they don't want to (or socially can't) function inside industry - have you ever known an academic? i do, as very close family friends but they are train wrecks. so yes, they are completely dependent on university funding to perpetually put off becoming a full blown adult.

Why yes I do! My father is a (now emeritus) professor of Mathematics at a major research university. Most of the adults I knew growing up were university professors, mostly in Math, Statistics, Engineering, and physical sciences. Several of these relationships grew into adult friendships and I'm still in contact with quite a few of them. Several of my high school friends are so talented and driven that they are now tenured University faculty themselves. And I have my own 20 year career in the private sector to compare it with (banking, maritime logistics and software engineering if you care). So no, I do not share your blanket assessment of academics; the great majority of the ones I know are highly intelligent and driven to achieve, and I have no doubt (*NONE*) that they would have thrived in business or technology jobs if that is where they had chosen to direct their attention. Want to know another of my secrets? Not all of them are particularly liberal

landtof says

bdrasin says

They also must be doing a hell of a good job of keeping the news of all these tenured faculty who got sacked from getting out

you're a real piece of shit with no clue what he/she is talking about.

(watches the arrows bounce off)

landtof says

a quick search of the cases listed on the FIRE website reveals:

Marquette University: Faculty Member Facing Loss of Tenure for Opinions on Blog

https://www.thefire.org/cases/marquette-university-faculty-member-facing-loss-of-tenure-for-opinions-on-blog/

I'd not heard of this case. From what I read the case is still pending and will be decided by a committee http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/24308/. If he does lose the case (I hope he wins, FWIW) it will be the first time I've ever heard of such a thing and I've known a LOT of profs.
The reasons I have heard of tenure being revoked:
* having sex with a student (by far the most common)
* financial impropriety (holding two academic jobs without telling, or embezzling grant money)
* one guy hadn't published or taught his classes in 15 years (made his grad students do everything) and was running a slumlord business on the side

In every one of these cases it took an expensive multi-year investigation for the school to get rid of them. It's certainly not the case in general that opposing gay marriage will cost you tenure; take for example this guy - he's a good friend of mine although he's dead wrong on this particular issue: https://www.math.purdue.edu/~gottlieb/Law/gaymarriage.html

landtof says

nice try again mis-characterizing my post due to the fact that your smarmy attempt to uncover "deniers" as morons has backfired on you. it is because of civil unrest and economic distress that governments seek more control, not the other way around.

Ok, then you again are left with an empty bag! Let's say you are right:
1) climate science professors are motivated by the threat of losing their grants and tenure
threatened by:
2) grant-issuing bodies and university administrators who are motivated by board positions in green tech
bribed by:
3) Business/government leaders (masters of the universe types), motivated by ??? Again, all of the motivations seem to be in the other direction. What possible incentive do they have to impose unpopular policies or have to negotiate with other nations? I can see the incentives the other way, because it means they can offer cheap gas, lower taxes, and less regulation which of course the people want.

So you *STILL* haven't given anything which could be considered an incentive for this large fraud. I thought I had finally understood that the enviro-academic-biggov complex was doing this on purpose to wreak havoc on the economy. But if that's not it then what is it?

p.s. I fully expect your next move will be to insult my family. Go right ahead; they don't care what you think of them either.

bdrasin says

So you *STILL* haven't given anything which could be considered an incentive

bro, come on.

MORE CONTROL / LESS FREEDOM. these folks are on a crusade to protect the world from other people. researchers follow the money, businesses gobble up the government largess, and the politicians get carte blanche to intervene as they see fit.

Ironman says

Bigsby says

You post a response to me and then put me on ignore.

Apparently, he's tired of your trolling!!! Smart guy!!

As you're the forum's resident expert on trolling, point me towards my comments to him that count as trolling in your book.

Ironman says

As you can see, there's a long way to go to get to a dangerous level.

So, why is the IPCC, the scientists and the alarmists lying to the general public?

You post a chart showing that we have a long way to go before everyone will have health issues from breathing. And that is evidence of what in terms of climate change?

Ironman says

Just EVERY post you made in this thread, as starters...

You NEVER back up your statements with ANY proof, data, links, charts, etc. All we see is your delusional "opinions"...

You know what they say about "opinions", right?

My 'delusional opinions' shared by 97% of published peer-reviewed papers?

A whole 43 papers. Out of how many tens of thousands? And which 'several journals' were problematic?

Issues with a handful of papers doesn't then allow you to say that ALL research is unreliable. The overwhelming weight of evidence, CIC. The overwhelming weight of evidence....., which of course, you ignore.

Ironman says

OK, if 1500 ppm is best for plant growth, what do you think the plants are doing with the current level of approx. 390's ppm that we have now?

Just looked out my window and it appears they are growing.

Ironman says

So, it appears, by this chart, that we're having a 2 ppm rise per year of what is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere. That doesn't really sound "alarming", does it??

Now, let's look at what's considered to be "safe" levels of CO2. You already established above, that plants and trees do best when it's in the 1500 ppm range.

Well, it may not sound alarming to one with no scientific background such as yourself. Very small changes in concentration of trace gases can have HUGE effects on toxicity, or in this case, Earth's atmosphere.

The table you posted again shows your ignorance. Nobody is worried about the toxic effects of small changes of CO2 concentration. What the data shows is that small changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere have a large influence on Earth's weather due to the greenhouse effect.

Regardless of what anyone says about global warming, it all comes down to polluting the earth. So, what difference does it make if we can hopefully all agree that polluting the earth is bad, and that clean energy is good. I don't understand why anyone (except for oil/gas companies and the politicians in their back pocket) can argue that fact and not want to push for clean energy.

debyne says

Regardless of what anyone says about global warming, it all comes down to polluting the earth. So, what difference does it make if we can hopefully all agree that polluting the earth is bad, and that clean energy is good. I don't understand why anyone (except for oil/gas companies and the politicians in their back pocket) can argue that fact and not want to push for clean energy.

Agreed, but CO2 would be the dumbest way to start with as it's a minor pollutant (some argue it is not a pollutant at all).

debyne says

why anyone (except for oil/gas companies and the politicians in their back pocket) can argue that fact and not want to push for clean energy.

i have no involvement in those industries, and support curbing pollution as well as conserving fossil fuels by utilizing more efficient technology - but the boogeyman narrative of "a planet on the brink" solely attributed to human activity is BULLSHIT.

when the environmentalists, research scientists, green industry, politicians, and the united nations come together to force change upon the world - you bet your ass there will be an intrusion on individual freedoms. further, that change is going to have an associated cost and who do you think is going to pay for it?

just look at what is happening in california since the green-aid went down the gullet.

Ironman says

BTW, I'm STILL waiting on your answer to this question:

Ironman says

Answer my question first. What's the largest percentage in the greenhouse gas category?

The answer he's looking for is "water vapor"; see http://grist.org/climate-energy/water-vapor-accounts-for-almost-all-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

"just look at what is happening in california since the green-aid went down the gullet."

What is that?

Bigsby says

Which answers the question of conflict of interest.


If enough headway is not made during the timeframe of the first grant, successive grants (read "paychecks") are in jeopardy. Time to massage the numbers for personal security??

Grants aren't paychecks for tenured professors, are they? They're funding for research of interest to them. And what do you think a grant proposal entails? They aren't saying that 'I'm going to prove global warming by doing X,' are they? The scientists do very specific research that contributes to overall understanding of what is happening.

You've got it exactly right. In fact misappropriating grant money for personal use is something that CAN get you fired. Winning grants can be highly prestigious and further someone's career by allowing them to publish, attend conferences, etc but any financial incentives will be indirect and down the line (in the form of a promotion or moving to a higher paying department elsewhere). If you don't have tenure, winning grants can help you get it. A lot.

bdrasin says

The answer he's looking for is "water vapor"; see http://grist.org/climate-energy/water-vapor-accounts-for-almost-all-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

I know. He's been over this before. It's a distraction.

He continues to post that CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere like it's some sort of breakthrough that no scientist has realized. It's basically the typical Republican argument that common sense trumps science. Another reason people like him are leading us back into the dark ages.

Ironman says

Sure thing, that's why left-wing radical blog sites (not scientific sites) are constantly used by the Libbies to justify their Global Warming scam...

Nice job!!

Huh? Non-scientific sites? You're completely delusional. Every scientific site is in agreement on climate science.

Ironman says

tatupu70 says

Huh? Non-scientific sites? You're completely delusional. Every scientific site is in agreement on climate science.

Then why are you libbies always quoting left-wing radical sites like grist.org, thinkprogress, Skeptical Science and more as the "authorities" and bible on G.W.? That kinda' destroys your argument completely...

Here's another non, scientific, left-wing radical source (written by scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego and Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading) which says the same thing. Go ahead and read it, it's only 34 pages not counting references: http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/02_Norris_and_Slingo.pdf

Ironman says

Then why are you libbies always quoting left-wing radical sites like grist.org, thinkprogress, Skeptical Science and more as the "authorities" and bible on G.W.? That kinda' destroys your argument completely...

Uh, we're not. I usually see NASA data, NOAA data, and peer reviewed papers on here.

Ironman says

Lie much?

OK great--please show me the scientific site in disagreement then. Not a site staffed by one crackpot.

In the West, the authoritarian impulse increasingly draws on the old progressive notion of government by experts. For at least a century, influential parts of the intelligentsia – starting with the great futurist H.G. Wells – imagined a society controlled by what he called “the new republic,” in which a select group of the most talented and enlightened citizens controlled society, largely undercover, unelected but all-powerful.

Government by expert has one fundamental problem: It does not inspire the masses. But now, with Pope Francis lining up with green stalwarts, environmental kingpins like hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer can now merge their greenness with religious faith, ideology with theology. After all, what can be better than combining scientific certitude with papal infallibility?

Of course, some elements of the pope’s message may be less endearing to the super-rich green capitalists. Perhaps some wayward acolyte might suggest that we could help the poor more by confiscating the holdings of the rich, or even suggest the immorality of a few living very large while telling the rest of us to live ever smaller.

The oligarchs, of course, are unlikely to embrace a Bernie Sanders-style social democracy. Instead, they may find more-useful models in the Middle Ages, before distinctions between theology and science first deepened. In that era, the Church governed both fact and fantasy. The Church also concerned itself with the poor, but studiously avoided challenging the very economic and social order that often served to keep them that way.

One casualty of the new alliance of the scientific establishment and the church could be free thought and debate. In the new atmosphere, those who dispute the “truths” shared by the scientific establishment and the papacy could face increasing demonization, if not worse. Indeed, one progressive, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehorse, has openly suggested that those who criticize the climate change agenda should be subject to federal racketeering charges.

Every year San Diego winters feel colder. We're right by the ocean(literally a few blocks from the bay), and still get days below 40. I'm tired of waiting for this promiseland of perpetual summer! I'm getting a bunch of 25 gallon CO2 tanks to run 24/7 in my yard, then I'm going to buy the belchingist/fartingist cow you've ever seen. And if that doesn't work I'll start hosting climate change conferences in my front yard. I bet the CO2 emissions from these greencats jetsetting everywhere will get me endless 70 degree days for sure!

Next week will be a differnt chart.
(THEY!)
Have already got a chart for every debunk that they know their data wont support.

We need more than a few people's say so.