Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 94

Thread: Discuss

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spartanburg
    Posts
    49,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BuckyTownsend View Post
    I'll dilly dilly to that. Research and studies aren't funded without an expected result. If those result's aren't delivered there probably isn't another grant coming down the line.
    It’s sucks and pisses me off. I love science. Proving and disproving theories with facts absent of emotion is what it is supposed to be. It either is or it isn’t. No “feelings” or angry emotional children.

    Now we start with a conclusion and reverse engineer a study that supports it. It’s the same methodology that gave us that stupid lipid hypothesis that made us sicker and more dependent on the health care industry.

    Sad times when you can’t trust the media, the government or the scientist.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    24,410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn View Post
    It’s sucks and pisses me off. I love science. Proving and disproving theories with facts absent of emotion is what it is supposed to be. It either is or it isn’t. No “feelings” or angry emotional children.

    Now we start with a conclusion and reverse engineer a study that supports it. It’s the same methodology that gave us that stupid lipid hypothesis that made us sicker and more dependent on the health care industry.

    Sad times when you can’t trust the media, the government or the scientist.
    Peer Reviewed ain't what it used to be.

    Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Murrells Inlet
    Posts
    2,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fuzzy View Post

    The fluctuation of temperature has been occurring since the beginning of time and it will continue.

    Do humans have an impact? Yes.

    Is it a large impact? Probably not. (gut feeling)

    Does it make sense to reduce our impact? Sure.

    Am I willing to give up offshore fishing/driving and flying around to shoot ducks? Not at this time.

    I like nuclear fuel better than wind farms if given the choice. But where do we bury the fuel?

    What is the impact on the planet of nuclear waste versus 1 Billion tons of coal per year?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spartanburg
    Posts
    49,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    It is easy to be manipulated by others in the disinformation age...
    Very. We’re a meme culture. Quick grab emotional headlines, mash like, share and move on. Most wont read past the headlines to see all the “maybes”, “could be” and “possibly” in the actual articles that make them an opinion piece.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,808

    Default

    Liberalism is a disease and the scientific community is "eat slap up" with it...

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn View Post
    Very. We’re a meme culture. Quick grab emotional headlines, mash like, share and move on. Most wont read past the headlines to see all the “maybes”, “could be” and “possibly” in the actual articles that make them an opinion piece.
    Yep. I mean if we want to be honest about REAL climate change, lets talk about the comet/bolide strike 13,000 years ago that sent the extremely advanced people of the Earth back to the stone age...

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sullivan\'s Island
    Posts
    12,863

    Default

    Is the effect of humans digging up and releasing sequestered carbon more harmful than the 60 million methane-farting bison that used to roam this continent?

    Mother Nature will make adjustments, like flooding a bunch of land to lower the population of polluters and replace them with sun soaking and carbon-binding plankton. It'll all work out.

    Chasing carbon credits and such is treating the problem symptomatically. Until somebody starts dealing with the fundamental issue, overpopulation, I'm turning a deaf ear to all of it.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    5,282

    Default

    Liberalism is a religion.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Border of both Carolinas
    Posts
    4,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catdaddy View Post
    Call me when China and India are giving up fossil fuel.

    Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk
    And call me when Greta Thunputz, et el, are ready to ditch their cell phones and go to year zero agrarian society.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,808

    Default

    Sell the Contender, Fish. It is too late...

    Climate change: Oceans running out of oxygen as temperatures rise
    By Matt McGrath
    Environment correspondent, Madrid

    Climate change and nutrient pollution are driving the oxygen from our oceans, and threatening many species of fish.

    That's the conclusion of the biggest study of its kind, undertaken by conservation group IUCN.

    While nutrient run-off has been known for decades, researchers say that climate change is making the lack of oxygen worse.

    Around 700 ocean sites are now suffering from low oxygen, compared with 45 in the 1960s.

    Researchers say the depletion is threatening species including tuna, marlin and sharks.

    The threat to oceans from nutrient run-off of chemicals such as nitrogen and phosphorus from farms and industry has long been known to impact the levels of oxygen in the sea waters and still remains the primary factor, especially closer to coasts.

    However, in recent years the threat from climate change has increased.

    As more carbon dioxide is released enhancing the greenhouse effect, much of the heat is absorbed by the oceans. In turn, this warmer water can hold less oxygen. The scientists estimate that between 1960 and 2010, the amount of the gas dissolved in the oceans declined by 2%.

    Media captionClimate change: How 1.5C could change the world
    That may not seem like much as it is a global average, but in some tropical locations the loss can range up to 40%.

    Even small changes can impact marine life in a significant way. So waters with less oxygen favour species such as jellyfish, but not so good for bigger, fast-swimming species like tuna.

    "We have known about de-oxygenation but we haven't known the linkages to climate change and this is really worrying," said Minna Epps from IUCN.

    "Not only has the decline of oxygen quadrupled in the past 50 years but even in the best case emissions scenario, oxygen is still going to decline in the oceans."

    For species like tuna, marlin and some sharks that are particularly sensitive to lack of oxygen - this is bad news.

    Bigger fish like these have greater energy needs. According to the authors, these animals are starting to move to the shallow surface layers of the seas where there is more of the gas dissolved. However, this make the species much more vulnerable to over-fishing.

    If countries continue with a business-as-usual approach to emissions, the world's oceans are expected to lose 3-4% of their oxygen by the year 2100.

    This is likely to be worse in the tropical regions of the world. Much of the loss is expected in the top 1,000m of the water column, which is richest in biodiversity.

    Tuna are suffering from lack of oxygen, says IUCN
    Low levels of oxygen are also bad for basic processes like the cycling of elements crucial for life on Earth, including nitrogen and phosphorous.

    "If we run out of oxygen it will mean habitat loss and biodiversity loss and a slippery slope down to slime and more jellyfish," said Minna Epps.

    "It will also change the energy and the biochemical cycling in the oceans and we don't know what these biological and chemical shifts in the oceans can actually do."

    Changing the outcomes for the oceans is down to the world's political leaders which is why the report has been launched here at COP25.

    "Ocean oxygen depletion is menacing marine ecosystems already under stress from ocean warming and acidification," said Dan Laffoley, also from IUCN and the report's co-editor.

    "To stop the worrying expansion of oxygen-poor areas, we need to decisively curb greenhouse gas emissions as well as nutrient pollution from agriculture and other sources."

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-env...mpaign=bbcnews

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Border of both Carolinas
    Posts
    4,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    Obama drops $14 million on an estate that is 3 feet above sea level on Martha's Vinyard.

    Little Greta rides a sailboat across the ocean to avoid carbon. Problem is that her team hired a professional sailor to fly in from Europe to captain the boat.

    Yesterday wittle Greta tweeted this picture of her sitting on the floor of a train cruising across Germany:



    She failed to mention that she immediately got up and went to sit with her team in First Class for the entire trip.

    It is easy to be manipulated by others in the disinformation age...
    Not two days after Trump said she had an anger problem, she threatened to have world leaders "put against the wall." You're a special kind of volatile/stupid when you prove Trump right before the news cycle changes.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pawleys Island
    Posts
    35,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn View Post
    It’s sucks and pisses me off. I love science. Proving and disproving theories with facts absent of emotion is what it is supposed to be. It either is or it isn’t. No “feelings” or angry emotional children.

    Now we start with a conclusion and reverse engineer a study that supports it. It’s the same methodology that gave us that stupid lipid hypothesis that made us sicker and more dependent on the health care industry.

    Sad times when you can’t trust the media, the government or the scientist.
    This day and time, science goes to those with the biggest profit margins, facts and findings be damned.
    Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.


    You might take out a dozen before they drag you from your home and skull fuck you to death. Marsh Chicken 6/21/2013

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    47,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn View Post
    It’s sucks and pisses me off. I love science. Proving and disproving theories with facts absent of emotion is what it is supposed to be. It either is or it isn’t. No “feelings” or angry emotional children.

    Now we start with a conclusion and reverse engineer a study that supports it. It’s the same methodology that gave us that stupid lipid hypothesis that made us sicker and more dependent on the health care industry.

    Sad times when you can’t trust the media, the government or the scientist.
    So, because of the time in history, I now have to become a scientific agnostic? I cant believe ANY scientific study bc it may have a bias? certainly you can read and understand the numbers? Go make your own decision....and trust me (you already know this) but I hate it as much as you. Some of my posting this is to read the humorous replies from some of you. I swear I could write them myself.

    I dont this this issue can be judged from the gut. Its actual numbers and stuff....
    Last edited by 2thDoc; 12-16-2019 at 09:56 AM.
    Ugh. Stupid people piss me off.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,808

    Default

    Here are some actual numbers and stuff...


  15. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spartanburg
    Posts
    49,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2thDoc View Post
    So, because of the time in history, I now have to become a scientific agnostic? I cant believe ANY scientific study bc it may have a bias? certainly you can read and understand the numbers? Go make your own decision....and trust me (you already know this) but I hate it as much as you. Some of my posting this is to read the humorous replies from some of you. I swear I could write them myself.

    I dont this this issue can be judged from the gut. Its actual numbers and stuff....
    You be what you want. I’m not stopping you. And yes I can read the numbers; at least the ones they publish. But what about the ones they chose not to publish because they didn’t fit the narrative? Can we read those too? Or just pick a side and share research that supports it?

    To be clear, I don’t know who’s right. Time will tell. I do like my big truck and electricity though.

    You walking to work yet?

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    47,877

    Default

    again, dont confuse me with some advocate. I cannot comment on human's affect on climate change.

    I like being short-sighted. Its simpler this way....
    Ugh. Stupid people piss me off.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sullivan\'s Island
    Posts
    12,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by w33kender View Post
    Not two days after Trump said she had an anger problem, she threatened to have world leaders "put against the wall." You're a special kind of volatile/stupid when you prove Trump right before the news cycle changes.
    Her quote was misconstrued. She was not advocating a firing squad. She was saying, in her second language, that the leaders should be left with no other choices. The saying "up against a wall" in our vernacular mean to have no other choice.

    I don't like her politics either but I dislike even more the disingenuous tactic of assigning a different meaning to one's quotes.

  18. #58
    jwilliams's Avatar
    jwilliams is offline 2th Doc's Fishing understudy
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sumter
    Posts
    18,708

    Default

    tamie flatulence and velcro. those are the issues here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn View Post
    Does Elton John know you have his shotgun?

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,733

    Default

    Maybe Trump has a silly notion that liberals want to use the environment as a means to redistribute wealth. Then globalist as a means to increase their wealth. Soon neocons will have to fight a war over it.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,808

    Default

    The right aren't exactly a bunch of noble virgins either. Look no further than the "conservationists" here in South Carolina as they pilfer the State's Conservation Bank to line their pockets in the name of "saving" flooding swamp lands (AKA their hunting clubs) from development...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •