Let's watch global warming deniers' heads explode
- Thread starter countryroads89
- Start date
this is ridiculous too.
You do realize there was, at one time, a financial interest in the world being considered flat verses otherwise and that there was a consensus until it was proven differently? weak example.
just stopping all the senseless interstate grass mowing and banning gas powered weed eaters would lead to reduced CO2 production each year.
I just returned from New Orleans and the 80-90 mile stretch from NO to Meridian. Mississippi, where there is virtually nothing was mowed. There were sections 100 yards or more wide, mowed. It is a waste of gas, man power that could be used elsewhere, and caused unnecessary pollution. Add what the tractors created with that of the legions of gas trimmers. Then multiply this by all the other states and countries needlessly mowing roadsides in nowhere land and you have baseless CO2 production.
You miss the point. The consensus on whether the world was round changed DESPITE the financial interests at the time. If it was all about the financial interests, i.e., who is funding the study, then we'd still think the world was round.
Galileo is an even better example. The powerful financial interests of the day, namely the Church, thought the Sun went around the Earth and they put Galileo under house arrest for saying otherwise. But in the long run the powerful financial interests lost out to the truth.
Of course everything counts, but your I think the amount of CO2 produced by cutting the grass is miniscule compared to the amount produced by the thousands of cars on that road every day. But it's a valid question, namely how much energy to we put into aesthestics.
It is not a waste. One of the big issues and reason to keep the median between the highways mowed is to reduce the animal population. Having large animals living in the median will increase the number of insurance claims and accidents that lead to injuries and death in many cases.
One needs to expand their viewpoints and perspective before forming opinions that are very flawed.
The original argument was about people funding science to get the result they wanted. If it was that simple then whoever had the most money would always win the science wars. Were there powerful financial interests that didn't know the world was round funding research to prove that the world was round so that they could make money via colonialism and imperialism which they didn't knew they could make because they didn't know the world was round?
You're confusing cause and effect. People making money off of colonialism wasn't the cause of the world being proven wrong, it was the effect of it. New truth was discovered and people took advantage of it to make money. And the people making money off the new truth aren't necessarily the same as the people making money off the current truth. Financial interests usually have an interest in preserving the status quo.
Everything is cost-benefit and everything has to be considered in the larger picture. I was thinking in terms of aesthetics but as the other poster said, there are even financial considerations of the mowing since not mowing could cause animals to move in and car wrecks and loss of money and life.
But that aside, the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by the mowing is small compared to some changes that could be made in the way we drive.
Or maybe just invent GM grass that doesn't grow (or maybe they already have) and plant it in medians and be done with it.
please. if Clay was here he'd laugh at you too.
go back and relearn how the earth was found to be round, see who funded the "study", and revisit the financial consequences of that investment. Start with England, France, Spain, and Portugal and their impact on north Africa and the west Indies. Financial interests do not usually have their interest in preserving the status quo. Damn.
You can't plan to make money off of X if you don't know if X is true. If I think "If X is true then I can make money off it, therefore I'll fund research to see if X is true" then I'm funding research to find out the truth, not to show that X is true.
The initial discussion on this was about people funding research to generate a pre-determined conclusion, not to determine truth.
This world is round vs world is flat issue is not quite the same as global warming. Fund all the studies you want if the world was flat, but your ships would sail off the edge eventually if your biased studies were wrong. Where's the financial gain in that?
I wasn't comparing the two. I was only responding to the comment made if somebody had a financial interest in the world being considered flat, then suddenly all scientists would reach that consensus. There was a financial interest about the world either being, not, flat and the outcome was a consensus was eventually formed it was round. Consequently more financial interest resulted.
I'm not advocating for now mowing or not mowing the median but as Ben Franklin said, "Pennywise and pound foolish." Anything that uses energy uses energy but that doesn't mean it makes sense to spend a lot off effort on anything that uses energy. Doing so is usually more of a left wing thing though, as in, we should always recycle even though sometimes it doesn't make sense, or we should have people bring reusable bags to the grocery store even though it seems to me that in the big picture that is more wasteful than everyone just using the flimsy plastic bag and then recycling those.
in the state of Washington they charge $200 per center line mile of mowing. They report shoulder mowing, which is considerable less than the near 100 miles of a very wide median in Miss which cuts the shoulder too, costing $511,000 for 1022 miles at 2.5 cuts per year. They charge $1129 per mile to manually cut at $287,895 for only 102 miles of cut (only 10% of the centerline cut). This is a lot of CO2 and a lot of money. So let's be tons of CO2 foolish when multiplying this by every state, every year, and many countries.
Last edited:
I think that's a short-sighted analysis. What is gained by cutting is the safety factor from animals hidden in the tall grass that run out without warning and cause wrecks (already mentioned). Another safety concern is that of a wrecked or stranded car that goes into the tall grass/brush. The cost and pain of finding folks in a timely manner is hurt. While we're on the subject of stranded motorists, the brush gives predatory folks a handy place to hide beside the highway. Then you also have the concern of line of sight for folks turning onto or off of the highway - assuming this isn't an interstate highway. Reduce the line of sight, and you increase the number of accidents.
Now, the advantages of keeping the "green space" in the median and on the shoulder is that greenery actually processes CO2 into oxygen, so you get some mitigation of the CO2 produced. Also, what would be the additional cost in energy to either rebuild the road without medians or pave the medians? How would paving the medians impact the CO2 offset of the greenery?
any "analysis" is tempered with balanced thought. The only point I am stressing is removing needless mowing to reduce CO2 levels if this is really the cause of global warming. Of course safety of motorists and prudent decisions about mowing apply.
This is what it this issue has become. How fuking ridiculis can it get.
https://www.facebook.com/red.man.jordan/videos/10207293333714976/
https://www.facebook.com/red.man.jordan/videos/10207293333714976/
I believe Trump's stance is "drill baby drill". He's also not the hypocrite that Ms. Clinton is.
It's not a weak example and it's not ridiculous. The statement was that science changes based on who funds it. I won't deny that there hasn't been a concerted effort to slow down progress, but once the science is established we don't go back and change it. We know better now, so, on to the next thing. And then science proves something there, and on to the next and the next. The Earth revolves around the Sun, the Moon revolves around the Earth ... done ... on to the next thing.
You are totally missing the point ... completely.
That's what was originally stated. The world wasn't determined to be round simply because somebody wanted it to be round and therefore funded a study to make sure the study concluded the world is round. They determined that the world is round because it IS round. And we aren't going to go back and say the world is flat regardless of how many studies are funded with the intention of reaching that conclusion.
"Financial interests do not usually have their interest in preserving the status quo." I beg to differ. For instance, the big banks are making billions and billions off the current system, there's no way they want it to change. Cable companies don't want there to suddenly be open competition. Oil, gas and coal companies are making billions and billions off the status quo, so they don't want to see it change. When it does change, there will be new people to step in and take advantage and make money, and then once they do, they'll want to maintain that new status quo. Any time change is proposed, look at the people fighting against it the hardest and they are the ones that have made the most money with things as they are.
As normal, WhiteTail must have the last word. Move on. Will he respond to get the last word in? TBD.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Models aren't observations. I clearly recall in the early 2000's the modelers predicted a 1 degree at increase by 2010. Did't happen. There has been repeated predictions of flooding of coastal areas for at least 2 decades, hasn't happed. The has been and continues to be prediction of the inundation of low lying islands/atolls in the Pacific. Has not happened.
my Hansen and Mann both participated in the manipulation of data several years ago. Count me in as a skeptic of the convention
thinking.
P.S. the West Antarctic ice shelf is underlain by a rift zone, with high heat flow. It has collapsed about every 1000,00 years and slid into the ocean.
my Hansen and Mann both participated in the manipulation of data several years ago. Count me in as a skeptic of the convention
thinking.
P.S. the West Antarctic ice shelf is underlain by a rift zone, with high heat flow. It has collapsed about every 1000,00 years and slid into the ocean.
From dump #8: The Wall Street transcripts #PodestaEmails8
Hillary Clinton: "I want to defend fracking." Climate change environmentalists should "Get a life,"
Hillary Clinton: "I want to defend fracking." Climate change environmentalists should "Get a life,"
The average global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (about 1/3 degree Celsius) since 2000, refer to the link. You are also misinformed on the coastal flooding. The predictions for sea level rise are about 1/8 of an inch per year. This is not a big deal in the short term but over the next 50 years, this equates to about a 6 inch rise, which is a big deal.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
20,000 years ago, Chicago was under a mile of ice. What caused it to melt? The sun and the sun continues to be the one thing that no one can control. It is the single determinator in weather and there is absolutely nothing we can do and the socialist who try and destroy our economy over something we can't control is lunacy.
Thanks for your opinion. What do you attribute this to? Is the earth getting closer to the sun? Is the sun getting hotter? Do increasing CO2 levels play a role in any warming that may be taking place?
This is the bio for the writer of the article:
I am president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation and senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national radio programs. My environmental analysis has been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. I studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.
I think I'll trust scientists over an attorney "who studied atmospheric science".
Let alone scientists at one of the most respected institutions in the world that have nothing to gain from reporting results either way.
How long would it take man to completely melt one ice cap if we tried? I wonder how many nuclear explosions it would take? I'm just amazed at how some people are led around like small animals on a leash.
What do I attribute weather to? The one factor that is the biggest determinant is he sun. You really need to brush up on what has happened to earth over the last4 billion years and a lot of it happened before man walked this planet. There is no reason to believe that man can cause the problems that many on the left claim. We've had ice ages and we've had warming trends. if we didn't , we would still be covered in ice. There is no proof that any slight, very slight, warming is bad. Yes,t hsuen does burn hottera t times. Brush up on science, it helps. This connection works awful for my tping, I havet o go back tpo every sentence and correct it. See what Im ean?
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
