A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 26th 16, 08:32 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
DougC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,276
Default Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

On 10/25/2016 11:26 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2016 8:05 PM, DougC wrote:
On 10/24/2016 4:19 PM, sms wrote:

There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
Trump blinders.

Sure--in principal.

In the same way that a butterfly's wings *might* cause a hurricane.


Red herring. I don't think there are many serious climate scientists
nor much data linking butterflies with hurricanes. There's copious data
and solid science linking carbon dioxide emissions with rising
temperatures.

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

The second problem is that it is mainly presented as a social
engineering issue: since wealthy countries "caused" this issue, they
must become poor again to "solve" it... while much of the rest of the
world isn't restricted by it, or will continue to ignore it entirely.
Even if there was a problem, that isn't really a useful solution.
And it will not even succeed in its actual/hidden effort, since making
the rich people poor won't make the poor people rich.

Also: the greatest influence on Earth's climate is (scientifically)
estimated to be the /sun/, which is currently still beyond the scope of
human control {and that may be a good thing}.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png


Ads
  #2  
Old October 26th 16, 03:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.


It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution, my
insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #3  
Old October 26th 16, 04:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.


It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!


And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann
  #4  
Old October 26th 16, 05:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

On 10/26/2016 10:51 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.


It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!


And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann


Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the
first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point
where the only way of saving the world will be for
industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our
responsibility to bring this about?”

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of
State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions
of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty
[Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific
evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

At least Global Warming sounds positive. Before that, The
New Ice Age seemed just dreadful.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #5  
Old October 26th 16, 07:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
W. Wesley Groleau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 372
Default Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

On 10-26-2016 09:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.


It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution, my
insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!


They treated the same way the guy who discovered that bacteria cause ulcers.

And people who resisted the MYTH that we should all consume lots of
carbohydrates and shun fats.

And on and on.

I have no clue on global warming, and neither do 95% of the people
proclaiming it nor 95% of the people denying it. It's such a hot button
that many of the people who do know on both sides are willing to lie
about it.

--
Wes Groleau
  #6  
Old October 26th 16, 08:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

AMuzi writes:

On 10/26/2016 10:51 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!


And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann


Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first
U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed
the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving
the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t
it our responsibility to bring this about?â€

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard
Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State
Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented
even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced]
greenhouse effect.â€


One doesn't expect much from politicians, but it is sad what has
happened to scientists. Being only human, perhaps it's true that they
have always honored the norms of science [1] more in the breach than the
observance, but there was a sense that, somehow, scientists had a duty
to truth.

RIP.

[1] Eg:
http://ethicsandscience.scientopia.o...ms-of-science/

--
  #7  
Old October 26th 16, 10:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

On 10/26/2016 2:29 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 10/26/2016 10:51 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!

And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann


Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first
U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed
the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving
the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t
it our responsibility to bring this about?â€

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard
Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State
Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented
even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced]
greenhouse effect.â€


One doesn't expect much from politicians, but it is sad what has
happened to scientists. Being only human, perhaps it's true that they
have always honored the norms of science [1] more in the breach than the
observance, but there was a sense that, somehow, scientists had a duty
to truth.

RIP.

[1] Eg:
http://ethicsandscience.scientopia.o...ms-of-science/


Oh, that's merely science. pffft.
Global Climate Change is something entirely different:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4NtxXsjTi


Be sure to read down to Doctor Suckall's work. Apt, I say.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #8  
Old October 26th 16, 10:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 4:51:35 PM UTC+1, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.


It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!


And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann


  #9  
Old October 26th 16, 10:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 4:51:35 PM UTC+1, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.


It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!


And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann


Post-Normal Science sounds to me awfully like Marxist Science, otherwise known as Lysenkoism: If you differ from the WILL of Michael Mann, you WILL become the star of your own show trial.

Andre Jute
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming
  #10  
Old October 26th 16, 10:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

On 10/26/2016 4:43 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 4:51:35 PM UTC+1, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!


And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann


Post-Normal Science sounds to me awfully like Marxist Science, otherwise known as Lysenkoism: If you differ from the WILL of Michael Mann, you WILL become the star of your own show trial.

Andre Jute
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming


There's more money in Global Warming than even Scientology!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
As predicted the climate change sceptics were quite wrong.yet again.LOL! Doug[_3_] UK 78 December 19th 09 01:21 PM
We are the third leg of the stool to prevent Climate Change Bill Sornson[_5_] General 1 October 10th 09 06:07 PM
We are the third leg of the stool to prevent Climate Change Bill Sornson[_5_] Techniques 6 September 27th 09 08:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.