Yiggy posted:Hows the revolution coming along, Dusz? Do you feel like you're making progress? Of course you're just going to say of course you're not, that it wasn't YOUR solution, just the only one you're willing to timidly stand behind in the thread. When anyone attacks the facileness of your reasoning, you cry that they're disingenuous for asking of you a comprehensive solution, as if your paltry one should suffice as your Bona Fides for making GBS threads on any discussion you don't agree with. I do not think every species of reprehensible moron is worthy of respect. I do not grant it to fascists, I am not going to grant it to you and I am not going to grant it to Your Sledgehammer.
|
|
# ? Mar 21, 2013 18:18 |
|
|
# ? Apr 23, 2024 08:56 |
|
Dusz posted:I do not think every species of reprehensible moron is worthy of respect. I do not grant it to fascists, I am not going to grant it to you and I am not going to grant it to Your Sledgehammer. Thanks for your contribution to the thread! Just out of curiosity, how many long winded diatribes do you plan on sharing with us in the name of purifying the infidels? In other news, the commander of the pacific forces for the US tells us what all of us know: http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/21/commander-of-u-s-pacific-forces-warns-climate-change-is-greatest-threat-to-security/ posted:“We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he said. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.” Lord knows what kind of terrifying actions we'll see taken by world powers like the US, China, etc when climate refugees start knocking at the door.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2013 18:24 |
Your Sledhegammer posted:the deeply tragic but inevitable end result is that billions (most likely including myself) will suffer and die. Your Sledhegammer posted:(I think we've overshot the human carrying capacity of the planet) Your Sledgehammer posted:We can't stave off collapse, but I hope that in the death throes of this society, some of us can begin to build a foundation for coming generations. A lovely poster, just answer these two questions. Have you read these three posts? If someone made the following post, would you also defend it? Your Jewkiller posted:The Jewish conspiracey is strong. It is Deeply Tragic, but we have to kill all thos ejews.. it is inevitable, hopefully we will be able to Build a Better future because all those dang jews are dead. Every day I cry myself to sleep right after my daily DarkSouls&vegan burger binge
|
|
# ? Mar 21, 2013 22:56 |
|
Dusz posted:A lovely poster, just answer these two questions. Have you read these three posts? If someone made the following post, would you also defend it? I've got a better idea, why don't you take your opinions and share them somewhere that's not in this thread. Honestly, your question is insulting and at the risk of being probated I'm just going to say you're a poo poo poster and leave it at that.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2013 23:02 |
a lovely poster posted:I've got a better idea, why don't you take your opinions and share them somewhere that's not in this thread. Honestly, your question is insulting and at the risk of being probated I'm just going to say you're a poo poo poster and leave it at that. Why do you think you should be exempt from criticism? I mean, you are defending a pretty radical ideology (cult worship of genocide). You think such an idea doesn't deserve a bit of scrutiny? Now to be fair, that set of ideas is just a pipe dream of a depressive child that is never going to work out except in the lunatic brain of Your Sledgegammer and co but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. So again - do you just not read what they say and blindly defend everything or do you actually believe it as well. In that case, you could at least pretend to take your own genocide-worship seriously and try to defend it when challenged on it, instead of crying about haters like an emo kid who got his favorite band insulted. The only reason their (your?) idea is being tolerated by anyone because nobody takes a few professional Video Games&E/N posters pontificating genocide seriously, and because sitting around and having people die from inaction, just sounds a lot nicer than killing them yourself. And my question was not an insult - I genuinely get the feeling you would be willing to defend anything, if you are willing to defend this. So now you dodge a simple yes/no question with some moaning about drat dirty haters, what am I to think? Dusz fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
# ? Mar 21, 2013 23:26 |
|
Wow, peak oilers are now a genocide cult I guess. This is truly the thread that keeps on giving.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2013 23:35 |
|
I have in my hand a list of ten posters with insufficient piety and faith in the inevitable climate change solutions which are sure to be forthcoming. Failure to accept in this Millenarian hope for our salvation will be construed as tacit conspiracy to mass genocide.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2013 23:39 |
Yiggy posted:I have in my hand a list of ten posters with insufficient piety and faith in the inevitable climate change solutions which are sure to be forthcoming. Failure to accept in this Millenarian hope for our salvation will be construed as tacit conspiracy to mass genocide. It sure is convenient that the truth to the all universe is that you sit around doing nothing, all while taking a 'principled stand' (sit on an online echo chamber of 3 people and a few hangers-on talking about how wonderful you are). Even better, it opens a lot of free time for playing Dark Souls&other cool video games, playing guitar and crying on E/N about first world problems. Life's not so bad when you restructure reality to suit your needs.
|
|
# ? Mar 21, 2013 23:49 |
|
Dusz, we all know how you feel about Everyone Else's Opinion. I want to hear your opinion about climate change - like an effortpost about why it has happened, what you think it means, and what we should do about it.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2013 23:52 |
|
Dusz posted:Hey everybody, I'm a loving idiot! I tried to make it as painfully clear as possible in the Lesser of two evils thread a few months ago, but nobody is going to take you or your lovely and wrong opinions seriously if you can't stop surrounding them in personal attacks that read like babys first helldump post. Video game posters? Really? From the guy with a Deus Ex avatar? It's really quite hard for me to describe how bad of a poster I think you are when it comes to dealing with people who disagree with you, and honestly, after some thought, I'm just adding you to ignore.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2013 23:52 |
Paper Mac posted:This is truly the thread that keeps on giving. It sure is, it's like a thread for the twilight zone. It's like a few democratic socialists and 3-4 skinheads with swastika tattoos sitting around talking about the merits of veganism. You think the former would smell the stench eventually but guess not. Or maybe nobody wants to ruin the nice polite atmosphere (a lovely poster: "they're really not so bad once you get to know them, y'know").
|
|
# ? Mar 21, 2013 23:55 |
|
edit. Not even worth it
|
# ? Mar 21, 2013 23:56 |
|
You disagree with people, but the only thing you're willing to do is spew caustic rhetoric peppered with immature, erroneous personal attacks. You have discovered an opinion that doesn't agree with you, but you can't rub two neurons together to do anything beyond spewing bile. You tellingly retreat back to these ad hominems every time because you're unwilling to confront the fact that you haven't provided any sort of the deep solutions you're decrying others for failing to create. Thats no excuse for the highhanded attitude you've brought to this thread, which has lowered the level of discourse considerably. You are an obnoxious poster who is no doubt destined to keep collecting dings on your rapsheet, where a pattern is already emerging and likely to continue since you obviously cannot help yourself. Hopefully we'll get a permaban someday.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2013 23:56 |
|
Dusz posted:It sure is, it's like a thread for the twilight zone. It's like a few democratic socialists and 3-4 skinheads with swastika tattoos sitting around talking about the merits of veganism. You think the former would smell the stench eventually but guess not. Or maybe nobody wants to ruin the nice polite atmosphere (a lovely poster: "they're really not so bad once you get to know them, y'know"). Nice, there is a thread for this talk it's called "Whatever happened to the American left?"
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 00:00 |
Balnakio posted:Nice, there is a thread for this talk it's called "Whatever happened to the American left?" There aren't any primitivists in that thread however. And the ones here have previously rejected to move their diocese into another thread, so I am stuck here if I want to talk about them. Also, what makes you think we should discuss primitivists in a thread about the American left - I know it's been a bad run for the left in recent times, but that's a bit rude, don't you think?
|
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 00:04 |
a lovely poster posted:I tried to make it as painfully clear as possible in the Lesser of two evils thread a few months ago, but nobody is going to take you or your lovely and wrong opinions seriously if you can't stop surrounding them in personal attacks that read like babys first helldump post. Video game posters? Really? From the guy with a Deus Ex avatar? It's really quite hard for me to describe how bad of a poster I think you are when it comes to dealing with people who disagree with you, and honestly, after some thought, I'm just adding you to ignore. You should write a CV and send it to the guys at Stormfront - I am sure they would love to have a guy like you on their side. A guy without the ability to read, with no self-awareness and most importantly - complete disinterest in what he is defending. Added points for having the ability to confuse people by attacking people against human eradication by calling their opinions "lovely and wrong".
|
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 00:28 |
|
There's no place to discuss primitivism because every time it comes up it turns into a bunch of howler monkeys flinging poo poo at each other. This thread occasionally has useful discussion of climate science. We get that you don't like doomers, nobody cares. Surely you guys can have a pointless slapfight about who is More Hitler in PMs if it's really gotta happen.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 00:40 |
Upcoming alt-history action movie: Adolf Hitler and the Three Stooges Synopsis: The movie takes place in a different world, where the fascists never came to power. We follow a young German boy, who decides to seek his place in the world, and draw it in his own colors, with no fear against the establishment. Sample Dialogue: AH and his three buddies are walking down the street, in the middle of a heated discussion AH: Global capitalism can go bite it. So many guys, like that Stalin fella have tried to do something about it, but I read somewhere that he was an evil cannibal. But I know the Truth, it's the Jews who are behind it. I am thinking of a "Final Solution" of sorts. This final solution is so awesome and amazing it cannot even be described in words, but I can only hope it will give us a better future. Of course, you cannot make a cake without breaking some eggs. That's what my roommate Heinrich always says. Random passerby: That sounds stupid and wrong, I don't like it Guy 1 (to passerby): Oh my god, how closed mind can you get? Open your mind up, grasshopper (tokes up for a second, then puts the bong away). Not all of us like raping workers down at the big factory. Are you a closet satanist of some sort? Guy 2: Haha, nice theory assface. I don't see you writing a 300 page dissertation clearly detailing every single aspect of his theory and your solution for solving every single problem in human history? Get real. Our boy here has done it, and to symbolize his stand, he plans to name it "Struggle..something" Guy 3: How come you are so rude. Where are your manners? Your tone of voice is inappropriate. Your verbiage is archaic. Your poise is inadequate. We just can't take you seriously, you horrendous Genital of Satan AH: Haha I love you guys, you're the best. Now let's go down to the LAN cafe and play some World of Warcraft(tm) while strumming some Grateful Dead on our guitar. (hater with terrible and wrong opinion is left befuddled at the spectacle, as the three stooges and their friend walk down the street, having finally found the Truth, as sung in that Bob Dylan song...) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 00:41 |
|
Hey so here's some news, it's not earth-shattering news but maybe we can discuss it instead of feeding trolls all day?quote:The eruption almost three years ago of an Icelandic volcano added iron to the seas south of the island. But in a blow to supporters of geo-engineering, the natural fertilizer failed to dent carbon dioxide levels. Looks like seeding the oceans may not be such an effective geo-engineering tactic as once thought. Stratospheric sulfate aerosols and/or space mirrors, anyone?
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 00:42 |
|
TACD posted:Hey so here's some news, it's not earth-shattering news but maybe we can discuss it instead of feeding trolls all day? I think ocean fertilisation has been viewed pretty skeptically for a while now. There's a moratorium on testing, last time I heard, and I think it's generally acknowledged that you end up depleting the water column in the fertilised area of oxygen and generating an anoxic zone, which is problematic for all kinds of other reasons. We really don't have many good sequestration tactics.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 00:47 |
|
TACD posted:Hey so here's some news, it's not earth-shattering news but maybe we can discuss it instead of feeding trolls all day? Sulfurs make me nervous. What are the major technological hurdles for space mirrors? Besides a nonexistent space program to service them and little political will to create and one.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 00:49 |
|
Squalid posted:Well I'm not making claims, I'm just poking holes in yours. and the sad fact is one is a lot easier to do than the other, and requires a lot less evidence. My baseless claims are just as likely to be true as your own, and just one could invalidate your reasoning. There really aren't a lot of ideas in this thread. I've been following it from the beginning and it just goes around in circles, the same ideas pop up over and over with little to support them. "There's nothing we can do." "Socialism now." "Trust in the free market." "Just buy a farm." These ideas generally seem designed to fit philosophical or political goals. Serious plans drawn from scientific and historical evidence are scarce and precious, and unfortunately tend to avoid political controversy. I guess most posters just want to vent their frustrations over our current inaction, which is fine, I'm not going to get on everyone's case who complains about capitalism or wants to sperg about fuel efficiency gains in computer controlled cars. Most people aren't really informed enough to have a serious opinion anyway. At least everyone here is on the same side, well except Arkane. We all are (mostly) on the same side, which is why I would like to see this thread move towards looking at what we can do to combat climate change. Squalid posted:Your claims just popped out at me in all the noise. I'm sorry for putting you on the spot, but I genuinely thought your ideas were interesting, and specific, and hoped you had more evidence. I want to agree with you. There has actually been a lot of research into the psychology of Global Warming denialists and the psychology of collective action, most of which is pretty depressing for environmentalists. If you'd like I could dig up some journal articles for you. It's been a while since I've read on the subject and I have limited database access now but I'm sure I could find something interesting. Human nature is malleable - Some people have said we're doomed to fail because of flaws inherent to human nature. We're too greedy, or maybe too short sighted, too individualistic, not generous enough, only motivated by money or power, or so on. I don't believe that. How we act is very much dependent on culture, how we are raised, and other environmental factors. It's not biological. While there are biological aspects of human nature, none appear to be so firmly rooted and negative that they can't be overcome, and some of them actually are reason to have hope.
Mass movements can both arise quickly and create massive change
Rapid production shifts in society can occur
Movements in one part of the world can spread rapidly
People become more radical when they move into struggle
So yeah, most of my evidence is based on looking at patterns in history to see what is possible and why events occurred, with some evidence based on my understanding of psychology, motivation, and human nature. Based on those ideas and the evidence for them, it seems possible to both create a rapidly spreading movement against climate change, and eventually cause a massive readjustment of production to shift us away from a carbon-based economy to a zero-emissions economy worldwide. Based on how previous movements have become intersectional so that infighting didn't destroy them or cause them to undermine each other, and based on how "us" in the us vs. them can grow to encompass just about anything, I think the best way forward is to link environmentalism, labor, and other movements of oppressed groups (including women, LGBT, minorities such as blacks or Latinos in the US) in solidarity in order to have as broad and as strong a movement as possible. If the movement is targeting something that ultimately is hurting all of those groups, such as capitalism (this presentation gets into some of that, but I can talk more about why I think capitalism is at the root cause of climate change and other problems if you want), then it can appeal to the large number of people we need to make a mass movement successful. We've seen how mass strikes and mass civil disobedience in history have led to demands being met. With labor included in the environmental movement, we gain the power of the strike. By including other oppressed groups, our base becomes broad enough to support strikes, and make protests and civil disobedience effective. With so many people involved, entire communities can become involved, and when an entire community is supporting, say, a strike, that's when it's most effective. Those tools are paramount to fighting the power of corporations and the state. With evidence I've seen that people in struggle become more radical, I think that such a movement would also become more radical. I think it would be up to left organizations and socialists to try and guide that movement in the best direction. Success at fighting climate change in the US would, I think, inspire people around the world to also fight against climate change. Obviously I am not claiming this solution is easy. Again, history shows us that a number of factors can cause a mass movement to fail or otherwise go wrong. However, I think the solution I'm proposing is worth looking at, and at the very least, worth working towards. At the very least, we need a green jobs program. However, from what I've seen of trying to use either of the two major political parties to enact change and the difficulties of using elections to cause change, I think a movement is the only way to get that green jobs program. A middle ground here might be agreeing that a social movement is whats needed, but disagreeing that it should be a force for systemic change. Anyways, I'd actually love to see some articles about the psychology of Global Warming and collective action. I only am just starting to educate myself on psychology. What I have read on the subject, like Naomi Klein's Climate vs. Capitalism that goes into the ideological thought processes behind denialism has been fascinating. I'd definitely like to read more about what psychology and sociology have to say about solving climate change.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 03:26 |
|
Yiggy posted:Sulfurs make me nervous. What are the major technological hurdles for space mirrors? Besides a nonexistent space program to service them and little political will to create and one. Anyone interested in space-based geoengineering will probably enjoy this thread on NSF http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1849.0 , the op is Kirk Sorensen who founded FliBe energy, he's 'the LFTR guy', and a former NASA and Lockheed Skunkworks employee I believe. Worth noting that since he posted the thread he no longer favours a manned space program like he does in this one. Anyone who is 'made nervous' by atmospheric sulfates might be interested in this paper from IV, Nathan Myrhvold's (former Microsoft CTO) IP/patent troll company (depending on your opinion) http://intellectualventureslab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Stratoshield-white-paper-300dpi.pdf Seeding the atmosphere with sulfates is fairly well understood because they form a significant part of volcano eruptions, which more or less are their own field of science. The most common concern, acid rain, is a non-starter because acid rain forms only if the sulfates are low in the atmosphere - inject them high enough and it can't occur.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 05:20 |
|
Paper Mac posted:There's no place to discuss primitivism because every time it comes up it turns into a bunch of howler monkeys flinging poo poo at each other. Primitivism and other radical environmental beliefs come up often enough in this thread that I decided to go ahead and start a new thread for the sake of the climate discussion in here. Anyone who is interested in the new thread can find it here. Hopefully this one won't just be a bunch of threadshitting and gnashing of teeth over people with different opinions and will actually generate some interesting discussion. I hope some of you will join me.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 05:50 |
|
satan!!! posted:Seeding the atmosphere with sulfates is fairly well understood because they form a significant part of volcano eruptions, which more or less are their own field of science. The most common concern, acid rain, is a non-starter because acid rain forms only if the sulfates are low in the atmosphere - inject them high enough and it can't occur. Another common concern is the uneven cooling effect. There have been a couple of recent papers published w/ respect to this as I think there are some pretty serious equity concerns in that the equitorial regions don't get much cooling while the temperate zones get much more (IIRC).
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 16:11 |
|
satan!!! posted:Seeding the atmosphere with sulfates is fairly well understood because they form a significant part of volcano eruptions, which more or less are their own field of science. The most common concern, acid rain, is a non-starter because acid rain forms only if the sulfates are low in the atmosphere - inject them high enough and it can't occur. My main concern about sulfates is that we'll just use them as a crutch, and it'll allow us to keep burning fossil fuels without feeling the full warming effects. So that any instability in human government or the process which pumps these into the atmosphere could result in catastrophe if stopped suddenly.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 16:19 |
|
Paper Mac posted:Another common concern is the uneven cooling effect. There have been a couple of recent papers published w/ respect to this as I think there are some pretty serious equity concerns in that the equitorial regions don't get much cooling while the temperate zones get much more (IIRC). How would that affect weather patterns? I suppose that is a multimillion dollar question though.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 16:19 |
|
Claverjoe posted:How would that affect weather patterns? I suppose that is a multimillion dollar question though. Yeah, I don't think anyone knows the answer to that well enough to give you an intellectually satisfying answer.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 16:55 |
|
Pendragon posted:Here's a direct example of how logic doesn't enter into global warming debates: a recent paper showed that our planet was in the middle of a cooling period before the most recent spike in warming. This is not a good example, actually. That paper contains significant errors with his ocean core data and is hopefully going to be withdrawn (the authors are preparing a response to Steve McIntyre, as was passed along to me when I contacted a reporter -- the last authors to do this eventually withdrew their paper due to errors). His temperature reconstruction yields a significant downturn in 20th century temperature proxies compared to previous centuries, but he re-dated a large number of proxies which resulted in an uptick. For example, relevant ocean core proxies which didn't "fit" were deleted: and proxies were significantly re-dated, some by as many as 1000 years, which resulted in this change: Perhaps most damning of all, Marcott had DONE THIS RECONSTRUCTION BEFORE in his PhD thesis in 2011, yielding this: This is the equivalent graph from his published and peer-reviewed report in March 8th's Science: McIntyre defends his peer reviewers a bit against out and out incompetence, implying that Marcott was being intentionally deceptive: quote:The type of analysis that I do is well beyond what peer reviewers do or can reasonably be expected to do. Peer reviewers can’t be expected to vet everything. I also think it is apparent that his motives were in the wrong place given the media blitz that the authors/co-authors did. Compare part of Marcott's response to Steve... quote:Thank you for the inquiry. Please note that we clearly state in paragraph 4 of the manuscript that the reconstruction over the past 60 yrs before present (the years 1890 − 1950 CE) is probably not robust because of the small number of datasets that go into the reconstruction over that time frame. ... ...with the NYT's lede on the story: quote:Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years, scientists reported Thursday, and over the coming decades are likely to surpass levels not seen on the planet since before the last ice age. That sentence is not even close to correct just based on the paper itself (uncertainty bands), doubly incorrect when you compare it to Marcott's statement about it not being "robust", and triply incorrect when you realize that Marcott significantly skewed his data. That type of hype is just a lie.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 19:10 |
|
Arkane, do you and Dusz plan out when you're going to disrupt this thread? Should we expect him back once you've left again? Can we have five pages without some moron just ruining them? Why are you even bringing up the NYT?
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 19:15 |
|
a lovely poster posted:Arkane, do you and Dusz plan out when you're going to disrupt this thread? Should we expect him back once you've left again? Can we have five pages without some moron just ruining them? Why are you even bringing up the NYT? Nope, but I appreciate your trolling as always...I was going to post about the study a week ago but figured nobody would care or understand what was going on. Since somebody just brought it up, I thought I could open a discussion on it. A paper published in Science having to be withdrawn for the author faking results would be kind of a big deal. Unsurprising for the paleoclimatology field, though, I guess.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 19:23 |
|
Be careful wasting time responding to Arkane, any time he's backed into a corner you know what happensArkane posted:I had a few replies written in Firefox but lost them all when I had to reinstall the software. Darn Firefox!
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 20:38 |
|
rivetz posted:Be careful wasting time responding to Arkane, any time he's backed into a corner you know what happens Could be a good point if not for the fact that I rewrote the response to the guy from scratch. Anyone else have flaccid trolls they want to whip out?
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 20:49 |
|
Arkane posted:Anyone else have flaccid trolls they want to whip out? You are already posting in a climate change thread, why would we need more flaccid trolls?
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 22:04 |
|
Arkane actually posted a reasoned position, is anyone able to respond to them with anything other than ad hominem attacks? I lurk this thread because there are several knowledgeable, intelligent people on both sides who come in with interesting (sometimes) well reasoned points of view. But as of late? What happened to "report it and move on"? Yes, I realize that could apply to this post, I'd just really like to see some good faith responses to Arkane's last post.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 22:28 |
|
Holy Calamity! posted:Arkane actually posted a reasoned position, is anyone able to respond to them with anything other than ad hominem attacks? I lurk this thread because there are several knowledgeable, intelligent people on both sides who come in with interesting (sometimes) well reasoned points of view. But as of late? What happened to "report it and move on"? It doesn't matter if he is right or wrong in this particular instance. Historically he has been anti-science, though he does manage to drag up the relevant link now and then. People don't want to engage him because he turns the entire conversation into a shitshow. So what if one group of scientists screwed up their data? Should we ceremonially toss out all of climate science based upon that revelation? Probably not, but that is what Arkane wants us to do. This really is a game, and it is a game with consequences. In good faith I would say that Arkane's post means nothing. He is readily refuting one study while the overwhelming science says that, yes, this is a reality. Exactly where did the scientific method break down where one or two or three.... etc controversial studies mean that an entire scientific and theoretical theory of a field is suddenly in question?
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 22:42 |
|
I haven't heard about that particular paper or the controversy around it before, so I'm not entirely sure what's going on there. That said,Arkane posted:A paper published in Science having to be withdrawn for the author faking results would be kind of a big deal. Unsurprising for the paleoclimatology field, though, I guess. The implication that paleoclimatologists routinely lie, then, needs to be substantiated with evidence. A single paper being retracted should be taken as no more than what it is.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 23:06 |
|
I think this brilliant talk speaks for itself. Basically the answer to a lot of problems is related to cattle. http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html
|
# ? Mar 22, 2013 23:24 |
|
Fox Cunning posted:I think this brilliant talk speaks for itself. Basically the answer to a lot of problems is related to cattle. I loved this. I want it to be true so badly because I love beef.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2013 01:18 |
|
|
# ? Apr 23, 2024 08:56 |
|
Apparently, the guy is a wild self-promoter and has very little in the way of successful examples of this. I also want it to be true, though. edit: if someone is really interested, you can compare the detractors with the peer-reviewed stuff in their portfolio. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Mar 23, 2013 |
# ? Mar 23, 2013 04:33 |