Wells Hall Off-topic BoardPolitics, Religion, and Social Issues. This board is your pulpit to preach to the masses (like the Wells Hall preacher) about everything from politics to religion. Please show RESPECT to your fellow Spartans.
About 10 years ago there was a huge decline in the belief that you needed to adhere to sound lending practices too.
I saw Lars thread and it reminded me of the movie Idiocracy
__________________ : One National Championship, 5 trips to the Final Four, Eight Sweet Sixteens, 12 consecutive trips to NCAA Tournament, 5 Big Ten Championships. Yeah, we'll keep him.
The scientific consensus (which can be demonstrated in several different ways) is not directly related to the temp lag, which has been explained again and again and again. I'm sure a well read skeptic such as yourself has read the explanations. Right?
It's funny to read those articles because they all say unequivocally that mans activities are resulting in increased greenhouse gasses that are warming the earth. Too bad the Earth has been cooling for the last 10 years, those "unbiased" scientists are loosing credibility because their hypothesis continues to be disproved a little more each day.
__________________ Another Official Mark Dantonio Bandwagon Member
It's funny to read those articles because they all say unequivocally that mans activities are resulting in increased greenhouse gasses that are warming the earth. Too bad the Earth has been cooling for the last 10 years, those "unbiased" scientists are loosing credibility because their hypothesis continues to be disproved a little more each day.
Just to be clear - are you abandoning your claim about lags? Yes or no?
About 10 years ago there was a huge decline in the belief that you needed to adhere to sound lending practices too.
I would argue it was legislation like the community reinvestment act, ACORN, etc that pressured the banks to make bad loans to applicants who don't qualify.
It's pretty comical that it's these liberal policies that forced the economic crisis, now it's the liberals who are demonizing the banks and claiming that this is evidence that we need more regulation
I would argue it was legislation like the community reinvestment act, ACORN, etc that pressured the banks to make bad loans to applicants who don't qualify.
It's pretty comical that it's these liberal policies that forced the economic crisis, now it's the liberals who are demonizing the banks and claiming that this is evidence that we need more regulation
Although I want to be clear that republicans are to blame for this also (republicans executing liberal policies). It's not just the dems.
But my point though is that much of the business world knew they were making bad loans, but the government forced their hand.....plus, they knew that if they ever did go bankrupt over these loans, the government would bail them out (another bad policy).
Location: In the not-too-distant future... Next Sunday, A.D.
Posts: 1,145
#10 Chris Norman
Who stands to make more money? The deniers by perpetuating the status quo, or the advocates of the climate change science by changing societal trends?
Who already has money in Washington and integrated into the global economy?
If you answer these questions alone it does not prove that global climate change is real, but it does shed some light on the motivations of the two sides.
There is a strong motivation to hold the status quo as long as is possible for the rich throughout the world. The campaign against climate science is a cost of doing business for them. There is no altruistic motivation for truth behind the anti-climate science movement. This trend will continue until the cost of denying climate change outweighs the money to be made by continuing with the current economic model.
In comparison, the potential benefits to a climate researcher for publishing a study on arctic ice cores is minimal.
You can talk about green technology companies or Al Gore all you want, but the $$ there PALE in comparison and you know it.
As deep throat said: "follow the money."
As George Carlin said: "it's a big club, and you ain't in it."
Who stands to make more money? The deniers by perpetuating the status quo, or the advocates of the climate change science by changing societal trends?
Who already has money in Washington and integrated into the global economy?
If you answer these questions alone it does not prove that global climate change is real, but it does shed some light on the motivations of the two sides.
There is a strong motivation to hold the status quo as long as is possible for the rich throughout the world. The campaign against climate science is a cost of doing business for them. There is no altruistic motivation for truth behind the anti-climate science movement. This trend will continue until the cost of denying climate change outweighs the money to be made by continuing with the current economic model.
In comparison, the potential benefits to a climate researcher for publishing a study on arctic ice cores is minimal.
You can talk about green technology companies or Al Gore all you want, but the $$ there PALE in comparison and you know it.
As deep throat said: "follow the money."
As George Carlin said: "it's a big club, and you ain't in it."
Of course, the people most resistant to change are those who will be most affected by it financially. That's why industry screamed about new regulations in Pittsburgh and said it'd ruin the economy. It didn't of course; it just ruined their economy. Anybody in Pittsburgh -- besides U.S. Steel -- wanna return to the old days?
A lot of people said the creation of Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks would lead to the ruination of local economies as well. We know how that turned out ...
Neither of your points rebuts anything in those links. And they're both wrong to boot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwingenator
Too bad the Earth has been cooling for the last 10 years,
No. Again, you can look at this in severaldifferentways and it's simply not accurate. The average temp for the new millenia is warmer than the avg temp for the 90s, which is warmer than the avg temp for the 80s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwingenator
those "unbiased" scientists are loosing credibility because their hypothesis continues to be disproved a little more each day.
Who stands to make more money? The deniers by perpetuating the status quo, or the advocates of the climate change science by changing societal trends?
Who already has money in Washington and integrated into the global economy?
If you answer these questions alone it does not prove that global climate change is real, but it does shed some light on the motivations of the two sides.
There is a strong motivation to hold the status quo as long as is possible for the rich throughout the world. The campaign against climate science is a cost of doing business for them. There is no altruistic motivation for truth behind the anti-climate science movement. This trend will continue until the cost of denying climate change outweighs the money to be made by continuing with the current economic model.
In comparison, the potential benefits to a climate researcher for publishing a study on arctic ice cores is minimal.
You can talk about green technology companies or Al Gore all you want, but the $$ there PALE in comparison and you know it.
As deep throat said: "follow the money."
As George Carlin said: "it's a big club, and you ain't in it."
Just to be clear - are you abandoning your claim about lags? Yes or no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwingenator
Absolutely not.
Of course not.
The deniers have been recirculating the same debunked complaints for years, just like the creationists and their prattle about "no transitionals" or "radiocarbon dating is unreliable".
You realize your post rebutted none of the material in those links, right?
Doesn't change the science. So you want to brag about how ignorant Americans are?
Spot on!
Ignorant Americans!
__________________
"If he's (Tom Izzo) not the best coach right now, he's one of them," Suton said. "That's what Michigan State does -- win championships. Just having the opportunity to play for him and spend time with him on a daily basis ... it's amazing."
Varsity Members (only) Features:
: One National Championship, 5 trips to the Final Four, Eight Sweet Sixteens, 12 consecutive trips to NCAA Tournament, 5 Big Ten Championships. Yeah, we'll keep him.
Linear Mode
