"Deniers" of the scares....

[Toronado3800]

rain follows the plow = climate science is flawed so we shouldn't ever listen to it again

as

bleeding with leaches = medical science is flawed so we shouldn't ever listen to it again

I see a certain consistency here and it DOES seem as consistent with the original post as a humorous Carly Simon remix.

"Deniers" of the scares....
I come from a long line of "deniers" who were right! The track record is unassailable.

My Great-Grandfather, in his writings, lambasted the "Rain Follows the Plow" scientists when they said we should go, settle the great plains, don't worry that it's a desert -- your plowing up the soil and us dynamiting the air will cause climate change!.......

Marauder, I'm really not that much of a climate nut. Why even George W. signed that Energy Security Act which although fifteen years behind its time and overly complicated I still would have voted for.

Hmmm, how to say. Science can be wrong. Bookies can be wrong. If you pick a winner w/o taking the spread good for you and your ancestors. My life would be easier if pollution wasn't such a big deal. The urge to be lazy and make my cars faster more by means of pollution instead of gaining efficiency is difficult to resist! (Cutting off my mufflers vs going with Multi-port fuel injection)

None the less folks need babysat by the government or else we'd still be heating our houses in St. Louis with dirty cheap coal.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

rain follows the plow = climate science is flawed so we shouldn't ever listen to it again

as

bleeding with leaches = medical science is flawed so we shouldn't ever listen to it again

Wrong. You continue with this strawman.

Or is it that you simply do not understand my argument? It's not tough.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Marauder, I'm really not that much of a climate nut. Why even George W. signed that Energy Security Act which although fifteen years behind its time and overly complicated I still would have voted for.

ANY legislation based on this hoax, everyone should be against. Period. Especially now that we have proof it's a hoax.

Hmmm, how to say. Science can be wrong. Bookies can be wrong.

You're now comparing science to gambling? Scientists to bookies?

Have you an intelligent thought in your head?

 

[slackjawed]

Once I picked up a hitchhiker on I10 when I was headed to LA. The guy was young, nice enough but dumb as a box of doorknobs.
As we climbed the mountain out of Palm Springs, where the big wind farm is visible from the road, he asked me if I knew "what those things are?" I told him they were wind generators. His reply was "It's windy enough they should turn them off now."
Now I'm trying to figure out if it was eots or octodolt........

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Once I picked up a hitchhiker on I10 when I was headed to LA. The guy was young, nice enough but dumb as a box of doorknobs.
As we climbed the mountain out of Palm Springs, where the big wind farm is visible from the road, he asked me if I knew "what those things are?" I told him they were wind generators. His reply was "It's windy enough they should turn them off now."
Now I'm trying to figure out if it was eots or octodolt........

It might even have been Toronado! Driving a piece of shit like that, he would need rides often!

 

[Toronado3800]

Hey hey, if I didn't know better I'd say that was an off topic personal attack!

Anyway, my nylon timing chain was still working when I traded in the Oldsmobeater at 273k miles as was the touch screen so I consider that a victory.
********************
So if plow to rain isn't = global warming what was the point of the thread? You were comparing avoiding bad science with avoiding the global warming scare (alleging it is bad science), not making a scientific argument, right?

If this is the usual semi-scientific discussion I suppose we'll get back to the typical what do greenhouse gasses do to temperature retention talk.

 

[Toronado3800]

I'll admit the Trofeo's were full off all kinds of unnecessary gadgets which generally confused the mechanics working on them. Can't argue with Multi-Port 3800V6's or the 4T60E. The air shocks were 120k mile items though. Its just how long rubber will hold air w/o cracking.

I was annoyed with the plastic headlight covers when I lived in an apartment they would freeze shut during heavy winter ice storms.

Also replaced 1 hub bearing, a set of plug wires, Oh, it didn't leave me stranded because I noticed the noise and went investigating but the crank trigger/harmonic balancer assembly started to come apart. That was kinda unfortunate. I misidentified the noise as the alternator, replaced the alternator, THEN the balancer the next day, and wouldn't you know it the newest part on my car that pointless reman alternator failed a year later.

I had an ABS light on for a long time after parking on a mound of snow and melting my way into it

Also wore out a set of front struts. Easy fix since I got a new strut assembly out of a parts car.

Locked up my A/C compressor six months after a 134a "conversion" which included tons of leak detection dye.

Oh, and it required tranny fluid changes every 70k miles or it would feel like a motor mount was broke.

I did replace that top wishbone mount, and the power window motors.

Overall I say I over-maintenanced my car, things like changing belts and hoses twice for no reason while I had it and the oil compulsively.

If folks were concerned with reliability I'd send folks after something with that drivetrain and a simpler accessory package. Mechanics would screw up all the time trying to "fix" touch screen climate control problems instead of just selling a new CRT unit.

Got the car in '98 with 94k miles. Drove it till spring 09 at the 273k when I took it up to Springfield and traded her in on my new to me Lincoln.
*************
Now that this thread is about my Toronado as well.

 

[Oddball]

So if plow to rain isn't = global warming what was the point of the thread? You were comparing avoiding bad science with avoiding the global warming scare (alleging it is bad science), not making a scientific argument, right?

If this is the usual semi-scientific discussion I suppose we'll get back to the typical what do greenhouse gasses do to temperature retention talk.

What it is is another example of how supposedly "smart" people of their era have been completely wrong, to the detriment of the people who blindly took their advice.

Malthus, Galbraith and Ehrlich are other very good examples.

 

[Toronado3800]

Thanks Dude.

Perhaps my analogies were too off the cuff or I jumped to the defense of the windmill poster strongly enough to be offensive. Didn't seem like the most formal thread though with the song posts and all..

 

[Midnight Marauder]

So if plow to rain isn't = global warming what was the point of the thread? You were comparing avoiding bad science with avoiding the global warming scare (alleging it is bad science), not making a scientific argument, right?

If this is the usual semi-scientific discussion I suppose we'll get back to the typical what do greenhouse gasses do to temperature retention talk.

What it is is another example of how supposedly "smart" people of their era have been completely wrong, to the detriment of the people who blindly took their advice.

Malthus, Galbraith and Ehrlich are other very good examples.

NOW we're getting exactly where I was going with this.

Skepticism is not only healthy, it's very very necessary. Remember Toronado, the burden of PROOF.

And they haven't proven jack shit. They even ADMIT so.

Their efforts to quash debate, silence opposing voices, vandalize wikipedia, stonewall freedom of information act requests for the raw data, fudge the data and DESTROY raw data should tell us all we are on the right track in doubting them.

 

[slackjawed]

Real science is NEVER "settled". Real science is comprised of continued debates and experiments. One example is the 'theory of gravity'. In the early 1980's i worked for the USGS on a summer off from college. My job was to measure the force of gravity at various locations around the state of NC. They still have people doing it to this day. The point of this 'research' is to "prove" the theory of gravity.
Anytime throughout history that science becomes politicized, science suffers. Science can't be 'settled' by popular opinion any more than it can be settled by politicians.
Another example in the USA is the 'theory of evolution'. That 'science' was debated in court (tn vs scopes). Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution in public schools, and as a result, it became illegal to teach it in public schools until the 1960s. Whether your for or against the theory of evolution, it would seem that anyone can recognize that 'settleing' that science in a court robbed schoolchildren of the exposure to valid scientific debate.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Science can't be 'settled' by popular opinion any more than it can be settled by politicians.

The zealots believe bandwagon fallacies are convincing. And clearly they are, to the uneducated, mindless dolts out there who believe this Goebbels Warming shit outright, without doubt.

To we skeptics, it's just another nail in the coffin for this hoax.

 

[Oddball]

Real science is NEVER "settled". Real science is comprised of continued debates and experiments. One example is the 'theory of gravity'. In the early 1980's i worked for the USGS on a summer off from college. My job was to measure the force of gravity at various locations around the state of NC. They still have people doing it to this day. The point of this 'research' is to "prove" the theory of gravity.
Anytime throughout history that science becomes politicized, science suffers. Science can't be 'settled' by popular opinion any more than it can be settled by politicians.

Good example of how the scaremonger cultists use bad examples.

Even though nobody can so far prove with any certainty how gravity works at the molecular level, its effects are still accurately and consistently quantifiable and measurable.

Globalclimatecoolerwarmering science fiction fundamentalists can't even nail down how much atmospheric CO2 is directly attributable to mankind's activities and how much is naturally occurring.

 

[Toronado3800]

Globalclimatecoolerwarmering science fiction fundamentalists can't even nail down how much atmospheric CO2 is directly attributable to mankind's activities and how much is naturally occurring.

I agree.

I believe its pushing our luck to double it every 20 or 30 or so years. Then again I'm the stick in the mud conservative one with the environmental stuff.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real science is NEVER "settled". Real science is comprised of continued debates and experiments. One example is the 'theory of gravity'. In the early 1980's i worked for the USGS on a summer off from college. My job was to measure the force of gravity at various locations around the state of NC. They still have people doing it to this day. The point of this 'research' is to "prove" the theory of gravity.
Anytime throughout history that science becomes politicized, science suffers. Science can't be 'settled' by popular opinion any more than it can be settled by politicians.

Good example of how the scaremonger cultists use bad examples.

Even though nobody can so far prove with any certainty how gravity works at the molecular level, its effects are still accurately and consistently quantifiable and measurable.

Globalclimatecoolerwarmering science fiction fundamentalists can't even nail down how much atmospheric CO2 is directly attributable to mankind's activities and how much is naturally occurring.

Good example of how lazy you are concerning doing any research, and how powerfully ignorant you are concerning science.
Why does atmospheric CO2 rise


Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon
13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in
the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends
fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible
with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the
ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.

* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly
1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life
of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere
by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher,
p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago.
Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the
`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils

 

[Old Rocks]

Real science is NEVER "settled". Real science is comprised of continued debates and experiments. One example is the 'theory of gravity'. In the early 1980's i worked for the USGS on a summer off from college. My job was to measure the force of gravity at various locations around the state of NC. They still have people doing it to this day. The point of this 'research' is to "prove" the theory of gravity.

Whose 'theory' of gravity? Geologists routinely use gravity measurements to get an idea of subsurface geology. The more refined the data, that is, the more data points, the more information can be derived from the data.

Anytime throughout history that science becomes politicized, science suffers. Science can't be 'settled' by popular opinion any more than it can be settled by politicians.

That is correct. However, as you pointed out, a scientific theory is never proven and can only be falsified. When the theory creates models that give accurate predictions, then it is used by scientists and engineers.

From the work on genetics and paleontology you can see that evolution is correct beyond a reasonable doubt.

From what we are seeing in the glaciers, ice caps, and temperatures around the world, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that we are warming rapidly.

From the amount of coal and petroleum that we burn, we know how much CO2 we introduce into the atmosphere.

From the measurements of the acidity of the ocean, we know what the 55% of the anthropogenic CO2 is doing to the oceans.

From the measurements of the CO2 levels from stations around the world, we know that the CO2 level has increased about 40% since the start of the industrial age.

From the measurements of isotolpes of carbon, we know the increase is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Another example in the USA is the 'theory of evolution'. That 'science' was debated in court (tn vs scopes). Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution in public schools, and as a result, it became illegal to teach it in public schools until the 1960s. Whether your for or against the theory of evolution, it would seem that anyone can recognize that 'settleing' that science in a court robbed schoolchildren of the exposure to valid scientific debate.

That is quite an incorrect version of the Scopes trial. That was only for Tennessee, not the whole of the US.