Jump to content

Menu

Implementing the Ministry of Truth: the "fake news" scare


RegGuheert
 Share

Recommended Posts

NASA is alarmist nonsense? NOAA is alarmist nonsense?

 

Some of it absolutely is.  A good example of this is the constant changes to the thermometer record.  One example is from just this week:

 

What NASA Fraudster Gavin Schmidt Doesn't Want You To Pay Attention To

 

Screen-Shot-2016-11-13-at-10.06.39-PM.gi

 

The alarmist CO2 theory says that the atmosphere should warm faster than the surface.  But with all of the adjustments which have been made by NASA and NOAA, the opposite now shows in the record.

 

Tony Heller has done an excellent job of finding and exposing the data fraud going on at NASA and NOAA: RealClimateScience.com

 

If you want to find out what the temperature trend ACTUALLY is for your location before all the fiddling, he has written software to retrieve it for you: Pulling Back the Curtain Version 1.10.  It is available for both Mac and Windows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of it absolutely is.  A good example of this is the constant changes to the thermometer record.  One example is from just this week:

 

What NASA Fraudster Gavin Schmidt Doesn't Want You To Pay Attention To

 

Screen-Shot-2016-11-13-at-10.06.39-PM.gi

 

The alarmist CO2 theory says that the atmosphere should warm faster than the surface.  But with all of the adjustments which have been made by NASA and NOAA, the opposite now shows in the record.

 

Tony Heller has done an excellent job of finding and exposing the data fraud going on at NASA and NOAA: RealClimateScience.com

 

If you want to find out what the temperature trend ACTUALLY is for your location before all the fiddling, he has written software to retrieve it for you: Pulling Back the Curtain Version 1.10.  It is available for both Mac and Windows.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/

 

Even climate skeptics criticized Goddard on that one.

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goddard made two major errors in his analysis, which produced results showing a large bias due to infilling that doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t really exist. First, he is simply averaging absolute temperatures rather than using anomalies. Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time. If the composition does change, you will often find that stations dropping out will result in climatological biases in the network due to differences in elevation and average temperatures that donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t necessarily reflect any real information on month-to-month or year-to-year variability. Lucia covered this well a few years back with a toy model, so IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢d suggest people who are still confused about the subject to consult her spherical cow.

 

His second error is to not use any form of spatial weighting (e.g. gridding) when combining station records. While the USHCN network is fairly well distributed across the U.S., its not perfectly so, and some areas of the country have considerably more stations than others. Not gridding also can exacerbate the effect of station drop-out when the stations that drop out are not randomly distributed.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/

 

 

There has been quite a kerfuffle about USHCN adjustments. There was a WUWT post on reasons for the spike, a recalc at Steven Goddard's site, and more here and here. But the basic elementary issue is little understood. You need to be very careful doing arithmetic with averages of data from disparate situations.

https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/05/ushcn-adjustments-averages-anomalies.html Edited by Slartibartfast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This poster's weird fear-mongering and absurd implication that one can understand complex scientific data accurately because they have google and can find websites that provide simple explanations should be run off such a board as fast promoting cannibalism as brain-food would be.

 

It's sad that so many here are unable to correctly interpret a straightforward scientific graph.

 

It's also sad that when you are shown the clear evidence that clouds are, by far, the dominant factor which impacts the temperature of the Earth that many simply cannot comprehend it.  The reason this data does not show up in the mainstream media is because it would be OBVIOUS to most individuals that CO2 has little relevance in this subject.

 

And most here have not grasped that if they cannot produce a measured graph that shows that the average cloud cover on Earth has not move around much (like it has), they cannot support their blind belief that CO2 is a problem for the climate.

 

Finally, it is sad that so many do not realize that measurements are the key to science.  When the measurements do not match the predictions, it is nearly always true that the predictions are wrong.  (The exception is when the measurements are extremely difficult to make.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad that so many here are unable to correctly interpret a straightforward scientific graph.

 

It's also sad that when you are shown the clear evidence that clouds are, by far, the dominant factor which impacts the temperature of the Earth that many simply cannot comprehend it.  The reason this data does not show up in the mainstream media is because it would be OBVIOUS to most individuals that CO2 has little relevance in this subject.

 

And most here have not grasped that if they cannot produce a measured graph that shows that the average cloud cover on Earth has not move around much (like it has), they cannot support their blind belief that CO2 is a problem for the climate.

 

Finally, it is sad that so many do not realize that measurements are the key to science.  When the measurements do not match the predictions, it is nearly always true that the predictions are wrong.  (The exception is when the measurements are extremely difficult to make.)

I have to admire your enthusiasm for someone with a geology degree from Arizona state being more compelling to you than Climatologists from Berkley University, NASA and NOAA.

 

It's interesting that you continue to link bad data from non-experts while insulting people on their ability to read graphs, extrapolate data, and reliance on "mainstream press" which quotes leading experts rather than fringe conspiracy theorists.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admire your enthusiasm for someone with a geology degree from Arizona state being more compelling to you than Climatologists from Berkley University, NASA and NOAA.

 

It's interesting that you continue to link bad data from non-experts while insulting people on their ability to read graphs, extrapolate data, and reliance on "mainstream press" which quotes leading experts rather than fringe conspiracy theorists.

Again, you're arguing fallaciously with credentials as a stand in for taking apart the argument. Surely you can do better if you can't leave it alone :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really want to go down the road of discrediting input because of research funding? Almost no scientist has a leg to stand on in your own pro camp if we are playing follow the money :lol:

 

The purpose of financial disclosure is information, not ad hominem fallacies. That goes for both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/obama-runs-into-problems-without-his-teleprompter/

This Steven Goddard/ tony Heller man you keep linking to is quite a hoot. He's also a big Birther promoter. Really, this keeps getting better and better. I'm off now to find out why Twitter suspended his account last year, tho it appears he's back. Such a classy guy, by the looks of his latest tweets.

Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/25/global-warming-zombies-devour-telegraph-fox-news-brains

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry - hit add reply before responding!

 

I think funding is crucial to look at - especially from an institute that does not reveal its funding, that through leaked sources showed that at one point 20 percent of their budget was from a single donor, and when they came into existence 30 years by doing studies to disprove the effects of second hand smoke after getting funded by Philip Morris.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you're arguing fallaciously with credentials as a stand in for taking apart the argument. Surely you can do better if you can't leave it alone :)

 

That's what people fall back on when the facts do not support their position.

 

But you have to give them credit:  they held off the ad hominems for ALMOST 11 pages! :thumbup:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry - hit add reply before responding!

 

I think funding is crucial to look at - especially from an institute that does not reveal its funding, that through leaked sources showed that at one point 20 percent of their budget was from a single donor, and when they came into existence 30 years by doing studies to disprove the effects of second hand smoke after getting funded by Philip Morris.

 

Stop with the ad hominems!

 

(Am I doing this right???)

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this thread for demonstrating live, in real time, how people cling to ideology in the face of evidence, and how attractive some find the maverick, the lone wolf with arcane knowledge which tptb/everyone else/liberal elites etc etc, are suppressing. 



But what's getting bizarre is that the same oil industry which you praise & defend is already saying that yes, man made climate change is real & we need to do something about it, &  yet  there are still people arguing that it's not even happening. 

They (the petroleum industry) has essentially already moved on & instead are arguing about whether we should do carbon capture, carbon tax, what's the role of gov't v. industry, what are reasonable targets etc. You're still having an argument that was finished well over a decade ago. 


 

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am concerned people don't know what ad hominem means

Not in this particular discussion but have been reading.

 

Calling someone a troll or saying anything negative about the person is a personal attack.

 

Saying someone is incorrect about some fact, and explaining why is NOT a personal attack.

 

You are right.  It is very concerning that adults cannot recognize an ad hominem attack. 

 

Edited by TranquilMind
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in this particular discussion but have been reading.

 

Calling someone a troll or saying anything negative about the person is a personal attack.

 

Saying someone is incorrect about some fact, and explaining why is NOT a personal attack.

 

You are right.  It is very concerning that adults cannot recognize an ad hominem attack.

They used the word "troll," AFTER people were calling ad hominem.

 

I NEVER called ANYONE names and the ad homimen comments were addressed to ME.

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://blog.google/products/earth/our-most-detailed-view-earth-across-space-and-time/

 

Has this been posted? You can even use it to see rising sea levels.

I have here a link about satellites in space being fake and they are a part of a global conspiracy.

 

http://www.timetounite.com/fake-satellites-and-nasa-cgi-planets/

 

Your link is invalid.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://blog.google/products/earth/our-most-detailed-view-earth-across-space-and-time/

 

Has this been posted? You can even use it to see rising sea levels.

 

Well you know, since the original thread started about Google "suppressing" information I don't know that this will convince anyone.

 

Google is probably tampering with images  <------someone is probably thinking this. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you know, since the original thread started about Google "suppressing" information I don't know that this will convince anyone.

 

Google is probably tampering with images  <------someone is probably thinking this.

How dare you! Clearly you cannot extrapolate data!

 

Here is a youtube video about satellites being fake

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have here a link about satellites in space being fake and they are a part of a global conspiracy.

 

http://www.timetounite.com/fake-satellites-and-nasa-cgi-planets/

 

Your link is invalid.

 

 

Well you know, since the original thread started about Google "suppressing" information I don't know that this will convince anyone.

 

Google is probably tampering with images  <------someone is probably thinking this. 

 

Oh, I WAS RIGHT!!!! Do I get a prize? I'd like an ad hominem .... but only a friendly one that can live indoors and be trained.  Wait, no, that's a puppy. I'm thinking of a puppy. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admire your enthusiasm for someone with a geology degree from Arizona state being more compelling to you than Climatologists from Berkley University, NASA and NOAA.

 

It's interesting that you continue to link bad data from non-experts while insulting people on their ability to read graphs, extrapolate data, and reliance on "mainstream press" which quotes leading experts rather than fringe conspiracy theorists.

Facts and logic have no place in this discussion. You're obviously a liberal elite and can't be trusted :rolleyes:

 

Is that ad hominem enough for ya? :D

Edited by fraidycat
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They used the word "troll," AFTER people were calling ad hominem.

 

I NEVER called ANYONE names and the ad homimen comments were addressed to ME.

I think you've been discussing very nicely and avoiding personal attacks on posters for the most part. I disagree with your position and think there was some bad arguing, but your personal comportment was fine by me at least :)

 

Bringing up the funding source while not addressing the argument, and using that leadingly to discredit the sourcd's contrnt because of the association, is not a valid argument. That's like me pointing to anything funded by DemocracyNow, posting they were funded by a highly partisan organization with dubious ties, ignore the actual link content, and acting like I bested the discussion. I could do it, but that doesn't mean I actually did something awesome :lol:

Edited by Arctic Mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you've been discussing very nicely and avoiding personal attacks on posters for the most part. I disagree with your position and think there was some bad arguing, but your personal comportment was fine by me at least :)

It was you that accused me of ad hominem when I did not.

 

Comparing credentials and questioning someone's funding are legitimate concerns, not fallacies.

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this thread for demonstrating live, in real time, how people cling to ideology in the face of evidence, and how attractive some find the maverick, the lone wolf with arcane knowledge which tptb/everyone else/liberal elites etc etc, are suppressing.

 

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the calculation of how much more slowly the global oceans will cool when the top 1 micron of water is made 0.0005K less cool than it would have normally been without the additional CO2.  Again, since CO2 CANNOT warm the oceans and also cannot slow the cooling by more than a non-significant amount, they do NOT have any real affect on the temperature of the Earth.

 

It shows how easily people can be fooled by scientific data.  They show a graph which indicates a relationship, but they don't tell you that it is such an insignificant effect that it makes no difference whatsoever.

 

The other biggy is the plot of global cloud cover versus time paired with global temperatures.  Most alarmists have NEVER seen such a graph and have NO way to respond to respond to the obvious, huge hole it puts in their position.

 

The new measurements of greenhouse effect stasis for 25 years are just more of the same.

 

It's simple scientific facts like that that turn your ENTIRE faith-based belief system on its head.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well you know, since the original thread started about Google "suppressing" information I don't know that this will convince anyone.

 

Google is probably tampering with images <------someone is probably thinking this.

Definitely. Time to buy stock in tin foil.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am concerned about several cabinet picks because they are grossly unqualified or actually HATE the departments to which they are being appointed.

 

I guess it is pretty awesome to place an EPA hater in charge of the EPA so he can be sure to destroy as much as possible in the name of big oil

 

That guy is from my homestate and his behavior is appalling.

 

 

ETA: This was addressing a snarky post that was removed.

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a sense, yes. Science has been corrupted by the fact that most scientific funding now comes from government. This trend was entirely predictable. In fact, it was predicted by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961:

In science, the facts are the facts, regardless of who knows them or if nobody knows them. Period. If releasing CO2 into the atmosphere does NOT increase the global greenhouse effect, or if it increases it only a little bit, then there is no reason to fear the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

What???! So science would be less corrupt if it's funding came from interested commercial parties?!!

Our gov seems to specialise in cutting funds to science right now unfortunately.

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the calculation of how much more slowly the global oceans will cool when the top 1 micron of water is made 0.0005K less cool than it would have normally been without the additional CO2.  Again, since CO2 CANNOT warm the oceans and also cannot slow the cooling by more than a non-significant amount, they do NOT have any real affect on the temperature of the Earth.

 

It shows how easily people can be fooled by scientific data.  They show a graph which indicates a relationship, but they don't tell you that it is such an insignificant effect that it makes no difference whatsoever.

 

The other biggy is the plot of global cloud cover versus time paired with global temperatures.  Most alarmists have NEVER seen such a graph and have NO way to respond to respond to the obvious, huge hole it puts in their position.

 

The new measurements of greenhouse effect stasis for 25 years are just more of the same.

 

It's simple scientific facts like that that turn your ENTIRE faith-based belief system on its head.

Right, because the climatologists that I linked can not read graphs nor can they interpret scientific data.

 

 

Scientific facts do nothing to my faith based belief system, they are not related.

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing credentials and questioning someone's funding are legitimate concerns, not fallacies.

 

You truly do not understand the real meaning of an ad hominem arguement:

 

The Ad Hominem Argument (also, "Personal attack," "Poisoning the well."): The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the oppositionĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also "Guilt by Association." The opposite of this is the "Star Power" fallacy.  Another obverse of Ad Hominem is the Token Endorsement Fallacy, where, in the words of scholar Lara Bhasin, "Individual A has been accused of anti-Semitism, but Individual B is Jewish and says Individual A is not anti-Semitic, and the implication of course is that we can believe Individual B because, being Jewish, he has special knowledge of anti- Semitism. Or, a presidential candidate is accused of anti- Muslim bigotry, but someone finds a testimony from a Muslim who voted for said candidate, and this is trotted out as evidence against the candidate's bigotry."  The same fallacy would apply to a sports team named after a marginalized ethnic group,  but which has obtained the endorsement (freely given or paid) of some member, traditional leader or tribal council of that marginalized group so that the otherwise-offensive team name and logo magically becomes "okay" and nonracist.

 

Comparing credentials or funding do not refute the data that was presented in any way.  For instance, no one has been able to justify a 0.01K bump in the global temperature record for all years between November and December which NASA made.  That fact is a fact regardless of what you think of Tony Heller.  It would be pretty hard to justify that change on a scientific basis.

 

Some of your other criticisms are quite longstanding, and he has responded in detail to many of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and smuggity, smug, smugness, with a side of smug.

 

and also, nanny-nanny-boo-boo.

Yup :p

 

Must be a side effect of Russian hacking, I'm sure that explains it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the calculation of how much more slowly the global oceans will cool when the top 1 micron of water is made 0.0005K less cool than it would have normally been without the additional CO2.  Again, since CO2 CANNOT warm the oceans and also cannot slow the cooling by more than a non-significant amount, they do NOT have any real affect on the temperature of the Earth.

 

It shows how easily people can be fooled by scientific data.  They show a graph which indicates a relationship, but they don't tell you that it is such an insignificant effect that it makes no difference whatsoever.

 

The other biggy is the plot of global cloud cover versus time paired with global temperatures.  Most alarmists have NEVER seen such a graph and have NO way to respond to respond to the obvious, huge hole it puts in their position.

 

The new measurements of greenhouse effect stasis for 25 years are just more of the same.

 

It's simple scientific facts like that that turn your ENTIRE faith-based belief system on its head.

Again, are you suggesting that the IPCC doesn't know their science? 

 

The layman's answers to your questions are here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html

 

The scientific answers to your questions are in the IPCC reports (which are evidence based & refer to peer reviewed research). I refer you specifically to 7.3.2.2 of the 4th report https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3-2-2.html

but really anyone interested should read all of the Physical Report in the 5th edition. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You truly do not understand the real meaning of an ad hominem arguement:

 

 

Comparing credentials or funding do not refute the data that was presented in any way.  For instance, no one has been able to justify a 0.01K bump in the global temperature record for all years between November and December which NASA made.  That fact is a fact regardless of what you think of Tony Heller.  It would be pretty hard to justify that change on a scientific basis.

 

Some of your other criticisms are quite longstanding, and he has responded in detail to many of them.

Tony Heller is a pseudanym for Steven Goddard.

 

I refuted his argument with things that actual climatologists said. Then I compared their credentials.

 

That is not ad hominem.

 

Just because he has responded that doesn't mean he was correct.

 

I would be happy to discuss Steven Goddard's tendencies towards conspiracy, which include him being a birther, his articles regarding that ignore facts as much as his climate change articles do.

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also great news: World hunger is over because I just ate.

- Stephen Colbert

 

@ Swimmermom3, the reason calling out lies, conspiracies, and anti-science in an education community isn't a slam is because it's a real problem that can be addressed in some small measure by holding arguments accountable to reality. This poster's weird fear-mongering and absurd implication that one can understand complex scientific data accurately because they have google and can find websites that provide simple explanations should be run off such a board as fast promoting cannibalism as brain-food would be.

I think in an education community it is important to have conversations regarding accuracy, facts, source-checking and analysis or critical thinking. Do you (in general) really believe that the problem can be addressed by calling people stupid?  Will adopting superior attitudes and then bristling at being called "coastal elites" really help?

 

For the fake news issue, it might be helpful to look at a site like Project Veritas and analyze it against one of the standards of journalism lists. Ideally, those that use it and those that oppose it would both work through it respectfully. I know, I am having a Pollyanna day. I guess my observation is that there were people on here who did want a genuine conversation, but as the tone became more strident, they slipped away.  

 

You all know I can deliver snark too often and I am really trying to sit on it. This is just too important an issue to resort to scoring with cheap shots. FWIW.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in an education community it is important to have conversations regarding accuracy, facts, source-checking and analysis or critical thinking. Do you (in general) really believe that the problem can be addressed by calling people stupid?  Will adopting superior attitudes and then bristling at being called "coastal elites" really help?

 

For the fake news issue, it might be helpful to look at a site like Project Veritas and analyze it against one of the standards of journalism lists. Ideally, those that use it and those that oppose it would both work through it respectfully. I know, I am having a Pollyanna day. I guess my observation is that there were people on here who did want a genuine conversation, but as the tone became more strident, they slipped away.  

 

You all know I can deliver snark too often and I am really trying to sit on it. This is just too important an issue to resort to scoring with cheap shots. FWIW.

I am a bit crabby when I am accused of being unable to extrapolate data or read graphs. Them's fighting words!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, but that's the link I provided to show that the effect is so small that it makes NO difference to ocean water temperatures.  I even explained it in gory details.

 

Now it's your turn to show how much that teeny-tiny effect will reduce the rate of cooling of the global oceans.

 

What you and many other have been subjected to by that website is a fallacy known generically as "Lying with statistics".  Everything written there is accurate.  They have left you with the impression that this effect must be important, but it is not.  You are completely on your own to make the scientific calculations of the other contributors to ocean temperatures to find out if CO2 is really significant.  It is not.

 

If you want to insist I am wrong on this point, they you need to explain what, specifically, is wrong with what I wrote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What???! So science would be less corrupt if it's funding came from interested commercial parties?!!

Our gov seems to specialise in cutting funds to science right now unfortunately.

Interestingly the way this has worked out here is that it just causes more obfuscation and drives funding underground - it becomes legal money laundering in some cases when you're going through shell corporations and unions and PACs and various puppet non-profits to remain legal. Everyone has a concern and angle, especially in industry, and control of industry. Academia is some of the most corrupt. Both sides. Pretending there isn't a controlling stake in there is problematic and the stricter the ethics rules beyond basic and detailed disclosure the harder it becomes for your average joe to parse what they're seeing and from who. It becomes quite the tangled web.

 

Detailed disclosure is great - in government and privately funded research. Once you get much beyond that it goes downhill fast.

 

That's it's own topic but it's not as straightforward as it looks. It's a good offshoot discussion though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But all journalists are liars! So why would anyone in need of that list, look at the list ?

 

You can't reason with conspiracy theorists. The more you try to, the harder they dig in.

That's true in general - but most of the people disagreeing on these topics aren't conspiracy theorists, especially on this board. Refusing to agree doesn't mean you're a moron who can't see the better argument, believe it or not :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a bit crabby when I am accused of being unable to extrapolate data or read graphs. Them's fighting words!

 

My apologies.

 

Still, I have put the facts in front of you.  If you want to dispute them, then you will need to explain how a non-insignificant amount of heat enters the ocean due to CO2 when all it can actually do is reduce the temperature drop of the top 1 micron of water by a mere 0.0005K.  That compares with clouds and sunlight which I have demonstrated can MASSIVELY outperform the CO2 to the point where it is a don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a bit crabby when I am accused of being unable to extrapolate data or read graphs. Them's fighting words!

 

Oh Slarti, I read the posts after the one I responded to, you know the one where only one person has the answers and everyone else is an ignoramus.

 

I started checking sources a while back.  I can't do Pollyanna anymore. Sigh. I think I will just go beat my head against the wall because that will feel better than this does.  It's a snow day so I can justify the tall Tito's for after the headbashing.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you explain? It sounds like you mean your heart is happy because your family will be personally enriched at the expense of the long term viability of many costal cities. Do you realize there are parts of South Florida RIGHT NOW that were dry 10 years ago and almost never drain?

 

Not to mention Alaskan indigenous communities facing the rock and the hard place of rising seas and a lack of options for moving their villages to higher ground:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/29/science/alaska-global-warming.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh there are some, I can think of a handful on both sides. It's not most of the people posting here right now though, and not on this particular topic. There are whackjobs in every barrel of monkeys but they're also not the ones who are worth the energy to talk with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...