When you start throwing words like "dogma" around it's obvious where you stand.
It's only obvious to the terminally ignorant - folks exactly like you. who ignore the balance of what I wrote so that they have stones to throw.
For those like me, who just watched the video and didn't understand the point of view 'til quite late on, the camera is pointing back along the direction of flight.
Also, for some reason the video has strange out-of-focus side-pieces that are distracting and annoying. The view itself is gorgeous and amazing.
The sidebars are an effect of the smarphone's ascendence . Since asshats like to take vertical movies with their phones, they have to add shit along the sides to put them in a normal aspect ratio. Its usually blurred out repeats from the main video.. Since the camera video was square, they added the sidebars. I'd rather just see the original video than the presumably "keel" stuff.
But not to take away from it, it is pretty great stuff
I suspect that since the vested interests are choosing the political attack route, they probably do know it is credible, they just don't care.
The problem is who are the vested interests? The AGW scientists attack anything skeptical of AGW, and prevent everything being published. What science do you consider credible when it cannot be published in the journals?
Much of the money comes form "Dark sources", like DonorsTrust, and DonorsCapital, meaning they won't tell us, Kind of like legal money laundering. Koch Industries and ExxonMobil money has in large part gone away. It might not be unlikely that they have gone to the untraceable route.
Whic is all very convenient, doing this in secret. How many scientific reports have you see that have no names, because the scientists are too big of pussies to put their name on it?
http://www.scientificamerican....
Regardless, some reseach has shown that from 2003 to 2010:
DonersTrust / DonorsCapital 14%
Sciafe Affiliated Foundations 7%
Lyle and Harry Bradley Foundation 5 %
Koch Affiliated Foundations 5 %
Howard Charitible Foundation 4% John William Pope Foundation 4%
John William Pope Foundation 4%
Searle Freedom Trust 4%
John Templeton Foundation 4%
Dunn's Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking 2%
SMith Richardson Foundation 2%
Vanguard CharitableEndowment Program 2%
THe Kovener Foundation 2%
Annenberg Foundation 2%
Lilly Endowmwnt Inc 2%
Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation 2%
Exxon Mobiil Foundation 1%
Brady Education Foundation 1%
The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation 1%
Coors Affiliated Foundation 1%
Lakeside Foundation 1%
Herrick Foundation 1%
A number of others at less than 1 percent
The source of this information
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-k...
Unfortunately, there will be less and less information as these defenders of freedom move to untraceable donorship, which is almost always a sure sign of standing by your principles.
What science do you consider credible when it cannot be published in the journals?
Perhaps it might be better explained what I do not consider credible
http://retractionwatch.com/201...
or this: http://retractionwatch.com/201...
This one was pretty egregious on many levels.
Anyhow, before you put Retrsction watch on your hitlist of liberal organizations, they also hae published retractions of pro AGW papers.
Part of self policing and transparency, rather different than what has become "secret contributors" of the Deniers movement.
and when some idiot not using it properly crashes it into someones head, or downs a jet?
is it still then perfectly reasonable activity?
or will you suddenly realize that some common sense regulation might be perfectly reasonable?
Yes. Let's look at Chicago.
Such as this graph: http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfro...
Seems Chicago isnt the hotbed of crime it's been made out to be.
Their gun ban was in effect from 1982 to 2010, when it struck down.
The recent uptick in homocides occured -AFTER- the gun ban was struck down,
so if there is any correlation to drawn (and im not saying there is), its not the one you are trying for.
Chicago homocides peaked in early 90s, with the increase and subsequent decrease matching the peak in crime around teh country, both in locations with and without gun bans. The recent uptick is nothing like the historical crime rates.
Or as summed up at http://thinkprogress.org/justi...
Most significantly, it is important to understand that Chicago is not an island. Although Chicago has historically had strict gun laws, laws in the surrounding parts of Illinois [incuding the suburbs of Chicago] were much laxer — enabling middlemen to supply the criminals in Chicago with guns they purchased elsewhere. Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois. And even if the state had stricter gun laws, Illinois is not an island either. The remaining fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state, most significantly from nearby Indiana and distant Mississippi — neither of which are known for their strict gun laws.
It’s also important to put Chicago’s very recent increase in gun violence in perspective. Data from the University of Chicago Crime Lab’s Harold Pollack shows that this uptick, while certainly worrying, isn’t anything like a return to the historic peaks during America’s crime wave. Pollack notes that “Chicago ranks 79th on Neighborhood Scout’s list of the 100 most dangerous places to live in Americathe idea that Chicago faces a unique or unprecedented rise in homicides is incorrect. Our problems are all too familiar and chronic throughout much of urban America.” Chicago, following the national trend, has experienced a significant downturn in homicides in the past decade and a half:
And there was event a report into what caused the the 2012 spike in homocides, which was chiefly a result of an uptick in gang violence:
he points to three factors are particularly important: escalating gang conflict as a consequence of police crackdowns and shifting gang territory, outdated law enforcement practices, and — yes — access to guns.
[..]
Chicago’s streets are flooded with guns: it has roughly six times as many guns as New York City per capita, despite its restrictive laws. So if gang conflict escalates, and the gangs have easy access to guns, the homicide rate should rise. This explanation fits with the fact that 87 percent of Chicago homicides in 2012 were gun-related. New York, by contrast, did not experience a surge in homicides in 2012.
The guns that fueled this fire came from a small number of individuals bringing guns into the city. A study of Chicago’s gun market (which, incidentally, concluded that tight enforcement of Chicago’s gun ban and restrictions significantly disrupted illegal gun markets) found that most of guns in high-crime neighborhoods entered through a small, tight network of suppliers and middlemen: “Gun suppliers report that 60-80% of their sales are negotiated through brokers (we assume the 80% figure) and by our own estimates gun suppliers account for around half of all gun sales in the GB community.” Because most criminals weren’t comfortable going out of their neighborhoods to buy guns, and Chicago had no gun stores in the city, they relied on this network to get them guns from outside of Chicago.
Dr. Sagan clearly believed that the "extraordinary claims" of climate science were backed up by extraordinary evidence.
It was. Sad to say, the people we are arguing with won't accept any evidence, extraordinary or not. They get their science education from politicians - and the owners and handlers of the politicians - who are the most scrupulously honest and trustworthy people. If a politician tells you something, you can take it to the bank.
Why do not the people who have a vested interest in AGW not being true fund the research to prove it,
I'm sorry, but you have it exactly backwards. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. AWG proponents have made some huge claims that simply have not even come close to happening.
Cite the extraordinary claims, and why they are extraordinary.
Now give me the citations of the peer accepted research that proves that there is either no greenhouse effect, or that it fails.
I'll wait....... I'll check in on this thread. Be aware I'll be skeptical of your next claims that the scientists are scared, or that their opionions are squeezed. Under your "rules," that is an extraordinary claim, so you will be asked to give the legal citations. You're asking scientists to prove a negative. You really have no idea of how science works.
Consider this an exercise in you learning how. Which of course you won't, but hey, accept or deny the challenge.
That is not at all how science works. Otherwise, nothing is ever proven until it gets 100 percent acceptance. And thet will never happen.
There are still people who believe the world is flat, people that believe that crystals have special powers. If scientists have to drop everything to prove things to people who won't ever accept their science anyhow, nothing will ever get done. Because the next person says "I don't believe it." So it will start all over again. Science doesn't need to disprove Crystal powers, or the very basic fundamental principle that the so called Greenhouse gases have an effect upon energy retention in the atmosphere.
If someone thinks it doesn't, they have two tasks. Show how something other than greenhouse gases retain the energy in the atmosphere, and why if the greenhouse effect exists, it stops at some point.
I eagerly await the refutation of the Greenhouse effect, or at least the keys to why it eventually fails.
Not at all? Why would it?
I think it's great that we work to fix things that we understand and have clear, quantifiable paths forward.
My objection to "climate change" isn't what you seem to believe.
My objection is that it seems to have sucked all the air out of the room for the public to pursue real, tangible, projects that can materially improve life - mostly for the billions on this planet that live in squalor.
But hey, you keep paying indulgences for your sins, er, I mean 'carbon credits' (and that $ goes where, exactly, once it's done salving your conscience?) to make yourself feel like you're "doing something".
This is the stupidest conclusion I've seen in 2014 and I've had the US government and the WHOLE INTERNET aggressively providing strong candidates all year.
Deniers pretend to be skeptics. However, they are actually exactly the opposite: the distinguishing feature of deniers is not skepticism, but credulity-- they seen to credit pretty much anything they hear (or read on a blog somewhere)-- if it supports their pre-existing opinions.
And how is that different from the True Believer? Very few people who claim to worship at the altar of science behave in any way notably differently - tell 'em it's Science and if it supports their pre-existing opinions they adopt it as Gospel. Many people who claim to respect Science as little better than cargo cultists.
I use that as an example because it is more clear-cut than the climate issue, where there are a lot of people who hold a spectrum of views which are probably somewhere between being very skeptical and being outright deniers, but for sure there are those who pretty clearly aren't interested in any science that says man-made climate change might be real.
Nobody with any sense denies that such people (those who completely ignore science) exist. The problem is that a lot of people, almost all of which should know better, wants to lump everyone who questions the dogma of climate change in with that minority. Which doesn't actually surprise me, as practically all religions behave that way - dividing the world into Us and Them. And make no mistake, nowadays science *is* a religion, a fetish brandished by many to mark themselves part of the tribe. Like the most fervent bible thumper, they don't really understand the world around them - but the Gospel according to Jaime and the Gospel of St. Niel assures them they are among the smartest and thus among the righteous and the saved.
Words mean things, and I wish people would use them the way I wish them to be used
TFTFY.
Because you don't actually want them used correctly or with the meanings they've long possessed, but rather in the manner you've rather narrowly redefined as "correctly".
Nearly everything you just said is blatantly untrue.
The Arctic ice cap IS shrinking.
Its mass loss is an undebatable fact.
The total volume and mass of ice is only 25% of what it was in 1979. That's not up for debate. That is a fact.
When plotted, the trend is clearly downward. Ignorant people have been siezing on the fact that "2013 and 2014 were higher than 2012 before" while ignoring hte overall trend, or the fact that 2012 was a record low, and the past few years while higher than 2012, are still lower than the plotted average. it IS shrinking.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Actually yes.
There is more sea is because the water is freshening. Again: not a debateable fact. The less salty water is, the higher the temperature it can freeze at.
To say its freezing because its cold is to ingore the fact that the sea ice is increasing, EVEN AS THOSE REGIONS ARE WARMING, both air and sea temps.
On its own warming environment cannot produce more ice, thats not how ice works. It is only by accounting for the chainging composition of the freezeing water, specifically its salinty, that we can explain how ice can increase at the same time that both air and sea temperatures in the area are rising. Its because of fresh water inputs from the melthing land ice chainging hte local salinity of the sea water.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
And you pulled out the same tired of myth about the "heat islands." and "the heat isnt there."
guess what, the scientists arent dumb. they were after all the ones who first noticed the heat island effect. and its already been shown several times that even removing the data from said heat island (of which the sensors make up less than 25% of the total data; ie, most sensors arent subject to the phenonona youre referencing), the warming trend is still readily present, and it doesnt even effect the overall plotted data or trendlines. notice: not just compensating for the HIE, but wholly and completely removing those data points from the data, and it doesnt affect the overall picture.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
In short: you're full of it and dont have a clue what youre talking about.
But that doesnt stop you from spouting the same myths over and over without any scientific evidence.
And as long as you do, I'll be there, beating you over the head with the facts drawn from actual science and observation.
Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty. -- Plato
