Obama's 2nd Inaugural Address

[JohnStOnge]

Kinda like "free market" risks....eh?

Yes. Like...for instance...we've all been told for many, many decades that there are no guarantees when investing in the stock market. So we have a big stock market crash and everybody acts like they weren't told that like ten thousand times. Like all of a sudden there wasn't supposed to be any risk.

[JohnStOnge]

"Social Security." That says it all. Those two words and the mentality behind them tells you all you need to know about how ridiculous it is to say that our population has an "endless capacity for risk."

It's all about security now.

[Seahawks08]

You're out of your safe depth, junior.

Coming onto the internet and parroting talking points never turns out well.

Hansen's modeling was discredited.
East Anglia's research lacks integrity.
The U.N. backed "studies" have authors fleeing like rats from a sinking ship.
The only groups still pursuing the AGW schemes are government funded/sponsored.

Repeating media propoganda doesn't fly...

...unless, of course, your name has Jelly in it...

[CID1990]

You're out of your safe depth, junior.

Coming onto the internet and parroting talking points never turns out well.

Hansen's modeling was discredited.
East Anglia's research lacks integrity.
The U.N. backed "studies" have authors fleeing like rats from a sinking ship.
The only groups still pursuing the AGW schemes are government funded/sponsored.

Repeating media propoganda doesn't fly...

...unless, of course, your name has Jelly in it...

Just about as relevant.

[kalm]

Kinda like "free market" risks....eh?

Yes. Like...for instance...we've all been told for many, many decades that there are no guarantees when investing in the stock market. So we have a big stock market crash and everybody acts like they weren't told that like ten thousand times. Like all of a sudden there wasn't supposed to be any risk.

Yes. Like those pension funds that took a hit during the crash and were bailed out...or the big banks. They sure learned their lesson.

[Seahawks08]

[kalm]

Just about as relevant.

It's so meaningless that big oil spends 100's of millions to maintain it.

[Baldy]

Clarification: Man made climate change is real.

Absolutely...it comes down my chimney eats cookies drinks milk and leaves tons of presents every Christmas Eve, put a quarter under my pillow every time I lost a tooth as a child, and left candy in a big basket with green plastic grass every Easter morning.

[Baldy]

Just about as relevant.

It's so meaningless that big oil spends 100's of millions to maintain it.

Well...governments have spent 100's of millions to fake it. i.e. "Climategate"

[CID1990]

Just about as relevant.

It's so meaningless that big oil spends 100's of millions to maintain it.

You didn't actually look at the graphs, did you? Both are spoofs.

[JohnStOnge]

See...actually...if you're interested in data and statistics as I am you know there is a huge problem with the "climate change" thing at least as far as the thing about assigning particular changes to human activity goes. You know that cause and effect can't be inferred with statistical data without controlled experiment.

Then maybe you might do something like do a word search of the IPCC Physical Science Basis report chapter on understanding and attributing climate change for the word "experiment" to see how they get around that principle. And you find that they recognize the principle and concede that they can't unequivocally attribute climate change to anything without experiments that can't be conducted. They don't get around it. They just state it then proceed to ignore it.

And that's just the start. Then you start getting into the question of whether or not we should be making policy that would have huge obvious impacts on the basis of projections of unvalidated models constructed using understandings of cause and effect relationships that have not been unequivocally established. We would never allow the distribution of a new drug as treatment for a disease based on the level of evidence we have for thinking the "treatment" prescribed by the IPCC will cure what climate scientists believe to be "climate change disease."

Being interested in data and statistics can very easily lead to being inclined to be skeptical about the statements about how climate scientists know what's causing climate change and know enough about how the cause and effect relationships work to be telling us what's going to happen over the next 100 years under each anthropogenic activity scenario.

[kalm]

It's so meaningless that big oil spends 100's of millions to maintain it.

You didn't actually look at the graphs, did you? Both are spoofs.

Well yes. But there's a degree of legitimacy to the first one.

[Pwns]

[kalm]

Thus proving Seahawks graph.

[D1B]

Conks

Will believe every word coming out of the smirks of the public relation team at Exxon or the 22 year old GOP interns, but think 99% of the world's leading climate scientists are full of shit.

[Pwns]

Thus proving Seahawks graph.

I felt since we were posting silly graphics I would contribute to it. That cover from 1977 is actually fake, but the stories about the impending cooling of the climate and ice age are real. First it was global cooling, then it was global warming, and now it's "climate change" so that any anomaly from an unusually cold winter to droughts to floods and violent hurricane seasons are now proof that cow farts and human respiration are destroying the planet and not greenhouse contributions from living things with far more biomass.

One thing not on Seahawks chart is the interest in the fallacy of "scientific conensus". Eugenics was advocated by most top scientists in the early 20th century. Also, the fact that at one time everyone in the scientific community "knew" that saturated fat increased risk of heart disease while today that hypothesis is falling apart.

[AZGrizFan]

Then you start getting into the question of whether or not we should be making policy that would have huge obvious impacts on the basis of projections of unvalidated models constructed using understandings of cause and effect relationships that have not been unequivocally established. We would never allow the distribution of a new drug as treatment for a disease based on the level of evidence we have for thinking the "treatment" prescribed by the IPCC will cure what climate scientists believe to be "climate change disease."

Being interested in data and statistics can very easily lead to being inclined to be skeptical about the statements about how climate scientists know what's causing climate change and know enough about how the cause and effect relationships work to be telling us what's going to happen over the next 100 years under each anthropogenic activity scenario.

[AZGrizFan]

Obviously I didn't watch it. But I heard later that he said something about us having an endless capacity for risk. So I Googled the text of his speech and found this:

America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention.

An "endless capcity for risk?" You have GOT to be kidding me. The whole point of life in the United States has become minimizing risk.

That's one of our big problems. The nation was founded and expanded by people who were willing to take tremendous risks without any guarantees. The current population is constituted primarily of people who think the universe is obligated to make sure they're taken care of. If something bad happens they have to be assured that someone's going to rescue them. If they make an investment it's "criminal" if they lose money. If they get sick they should be guaranteed health care. If someone hits their car they have to have a law saying the other person has to be insured to pay for it. So on and so forth.

Endless capacity for risk? PLEASE!

I realize he didn't write the speech. But, good GOSH what an obviously fallacious statement.

You were on a ROLL last night, JSO. You must have adjusted your meds, eh?

[kalm]

Thus proving Seahawks graph.

I felt since we were posting silly graphics I would contribute to it. That cover from 1977 is actually fake, but the stories about the impending cooling of the climate and ice age are real. First it was global cooling, then it was global warming, and now it's "climate change" so that any anomaly from an unusually cold winter to droughts to floods and violent hurricane seasons are now proof that cow farts and human respiration are destroying the planet and not greenhouse contributions from living things with far more biomass.

One thing not on Seahawks chart is the interest in the fallacy of "scientific conensus". Eugenics was advocated by most top scientists in the early 20th century. Also, the fact that at one time everyone in the scientific community "knew" that saturated fat increased risk of heart disease while today that hypothesis is falling apart.

I'll stay open minded about the issue. Do I think allegations regarding Gore and others pushing the agenda for personal profit are legitimate concerns? Hell yeah. In fact, I think many of the AGW detractor's points have some merit. It's just funny that no one on the right is skeptical of the money spent by those who stand to lose if emissions regulations go forward. No, their interest is pure!

There are reasons to be concerned and it's certainly not a stretch to see how CO2 emissions can be contributing to the problem. The Pentagon and CIA consider global warming a security threat for christ's sake.

[AZGrizFan]

I'll stay open minded about the issue. Do I think allegations regarding Gore and others pushing the agenda for personal profit are legitimate concerns? Hell yeah. In fact, I think many of the AGW detractor's points have some merit. It's just funny that no one on the right is skeptical of the money spent by those who stand to lose if emissions regulations go forward. No, their interest is pure!

There are reasons to be concerned and it's certainly not a stretch to see how CO2 emissions can be contributing to the problem. The Pentagon and CIA consider global warming a security threat for christ's sake.

Where do you get THAT? I'm skeptical of ALL involved...they ALL have agendas. But the "right" (whatever that means these days) isn't the ones gobbling scientists' collective cocks on some vodoo science based off nothing more than conjecture.

[kalm]

I'll stay open minded about the issue. Do I think allegations regarding Gore and others pushing the agenda for personal profit are legitimate concerns? Hell yeah. In fact, I think many of the AGW detractor's points have some merit. It's just funny that no one on the right is skeptical of the money spent by those who stand to lose if emissions regulations go forward. No, their interest is pure!

There are reasons to be concerned and it's certainly not a stretch to see how CO2 emissions can be contributing to the problem. The Pentagon and CIA consider global warming a security threat for christ's sake.

Where do you get THAT? I'm skeptical of ALL involved...they ALL have agendas. But the "right" (whatever that means these days) isn't the ones gobbling scientists' collective cocks on some vodoo science based off nothing more than conjecture.

They may not gobble cocks as much but they certainly pay for the opinions. Besides, it's kind of tough to find many that don't recognize the concerns. And I think it's a little bit beyond voodoo science and conjecture. BTW, the East Anglia email controversy was reviewed by 8 different commissions including one from NOAA and they found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

[AZGrizFan]

They may not gobble cocks as much but they certainly pay for the opinions. Besides, it's kind of tough to find many that don't recognize the concerns. And I think it's a little bit beyond voodoo science and conjecture. BTW, the East Anglia email controversy was reviewed by 8 different commissions including one from NOAA and they found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

Not much. Read this:

Then you start getting into the question of whether or not we should be making policy that would have huge obvious impacts on the basis of projections of unvalidated models constructed using understandings of cause and effect relationships that have not been unequivocally established. We would never allow the distribution of a new drug as treatment for a disease based on the level of evidence we have for thinking the "treatment" prescribed by the IPCC will cure what climate scientists believe to be "climate change disease."

Being interested in data and statistics can very easily lead to being inclined to be skeptical about the statements about how climate scientists know what's causing climate change and know enough about how the cause and effect relationships work to be telling us what's going to happen over the next 100 years under each anthropogenic activity scenario.

You may not like him, but he's spot on here.

Oh, and regarding your graph? There was a time when 100% of the world's scientists thought the world was flat.

[kalm]

They may not gobble cocks as much but they certainly pay for the opinions. Besides, it's kind of tough to find many that don't recognize the concerns. And I think it's a little bit beyond voodoo science and conjecture. BTW, the East Anglia email controversy was reviewed by 8 different commissions including one from NOAA and they found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

Not much. Read this:

Then you start getting into the question of whether or not we should be making policy that would have huge obvious impacts on the basis of projections of unvalidated models constructed using understandings of cause and effect relationships that have not been unequivocally established. We would never allow the distribution of a new drug as treatment for a disease based on the level of evidence we have for thinking the "treatment" prescribed by the IPCC will cure what climate scientists believe to be "climate change disease."

Being interested in data and statistics can very easily lead to being inclined to be skeptical about the statements about how climate scientists know what's causing climate change and know enough about how the cause and effect relationships work to be telling us what's going to happen over the next 100 years under each anthropogenic activity scenario.

You may not like him, but he's spot on here.

Oh, and regarding your graph? There was a time when 100% of the world's scientists thought the world was flat.

I like everybody and found John's post to be intriguing. He may be right. But there's a shit ton of other noted scientists and statisticians who might disagree with him.

[AZGrizFan]

I like everybody and found John's post to be intriguing. He may be right. But there's a shit ton of other noted scientists and statisticians who might disagree with him.

Sure, because that's where the real money is.

[Pwns]

I'll stay open minded about the issue. Do I think allegations regarding Gore and others pushing the agenda for personal profit are legitimate concerns? Hell yeah. In fact, I think many of the AGW detractor's points have some merit. It's just funny that no one on the right is skeptical of the money spent by those who stand to lose if emissions regulations go forward. No, their interest is pure!

There are reasons to be concerned and it's certainly not a stretch to see how CO2 emissions can be contributing to the problem. The Pentagon and CIA consider global warming a security threat for christ's sake.

Yes, people should definitely always be aware of who stands to gain from what.

That applies to the scientific community as well. If you can sell the grant check writers on the idea that some kind of human acitivity is killing the planet or something in our diets is eating our brains, you are more likely to get money thrown at you than you are with some banal, ho-hum hypothesis. It's also naive to think scientists don't have their own biases and that they would be more credulous than they should be of any environmental doom-and-gloom hypothesis that validates their world views about industrialization and globalization.