quade 4 #1 October 23, 2012 http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/on-our-radar-climate-of-doubt/ No matter which side of the argument you're on, you owe it to yourself to tune in tonight to watch this.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,377 #2 October 23, 2012 Hi Paul, I know I'll be watching. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 October 23, 2012 Will it stream online? I haven't television for it but I'd watch it. I do look forward to seeing something that backs up the science. Will it lay out a case for AGW? Or will it go ad hominem? AND - will it go post hoc? (i.e., fires worse, drought worse, heat worse, cold worse, rain worse, mid climate is far worse, etc...) My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 October 23, 2012 Article says it will be available on-line 10/23 (today), but I'm not sure what time that will happen. It may be right now for all I know or they may wait until after it has aired on PBS stations on the east coast. I guess the only way to really know is go check out the PBS web site and see if it's up already.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 October 23, 2012 Thanks. Can't reach it from work My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #6 October 24, 2012 Disappointing. It had an agenda to make deniers look like the result of the tea party and a few quacks.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 October 24, 2012 Unfortunately, because of my workload yesterday, I can't comment on it. Maybe tonight I'll get the opportunity to watch it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #8 October 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteDisappointing. It had an agenda to make deniers look like the result of the tea party and a few quacks. They made a very compelling argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #9 October 24, 2012 What was the argument and why was it compelling? that is, what was the argument trying to show? Note - argument is not evidence. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #10 October 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteDisappointing. It had an agenda to make deniers look like the result of the tea party and a few quacks. They made a very compelling argument. I wish it hadn't been so blatant. For Frontline it was extremely biased. It almost reminded me of the old 60 Minutes offering where they were able to edit anything said and make it look like something different. Not the level of journalism I expected.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 October 24, 2012 So, all their previous works you've respected as honest journalism, but because you disagree with their conclusion of this, suddenly it's bad journalism?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #12 October 24, 2012 It's not that I agree or disagree. I was hoping for some scientific information presented in a way that makes the argument other than this person is conservative, and they are tea party supporters. Other than 97% of scientists agree, there was nothing in that documentary to sway me to believe. I can take just about every point and turn it 180 degrees and point it at the greenies and it would fit. QuoteNo matter which side of the argument you're on, Not true, not even close. And yes, now I have to re-think Frontline as a source of un-biased information.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShcShc11 0 #13 October 24, 2012 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/ watching it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 October 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteNo matter which side of the argument you're on, Not true, not even close. I disagree. Clearly you did want to see it (nobody held a gun to your head and forced you) and I think that even if the conclusions reached didn't match your own, you gained something of value from it. For instance, at least now you have an informed opinion about the program presented.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 October 24, 2012 I haven't seen anything indicating that the program was anything more than ad hominem and appeal to motive against those who doubt (they are tea partiers) and appeal to accomplishment (look at who agrees! it's like a celebrity endorsement). My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #16 October 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo matter which side of the argument you're on, Not true, not even close. I disagree. Clearly you did want to see it (nobody held a gun to your head and forced you) and I think that even if the conclusions reached didn't match your own, you gained something of value from it. For instance, at least now you have an informed opinion about the program presented. Absolutely. Glad I watched.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #17 October 24, 2012 So, you've made up your mind without even seeing the program? I think you'd get booted off a jury for expressing that type of mind set; don't you counselor?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #18 October 24, 2012 QuoteSo, you've made up your mind without even seeing the program? No. A program isn't going to change my mind. I plan to watch it but I have some pretty low expectations, considering what has been written. I am going in with the pre-existing prejudice that the program will confirm that climate is presently a political, social and legal matter more than a science matter. QuoteI think you'd get booted off a jury for expressing that type of mind set; don't you counselor? Yep. But this is court of public opinion, not court of law. But when I watch it, I'll make sure I point out a few of the matters that a court would not allow because of the lack of foundation, argumentative, opinion, etc... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #19 October 24, 2012 Anyone care to give a synopsis? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,033 #20 October 25, 2012 QuoteDisappointing. It had an agenda to make deniers look like the result of the tea party and a few quacks. Since that's what they ARE, what's your problem?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #21 October 25, 2012 Quote Viewing Notes: - Al Gore, "a credible leader." Yeeeaaah... ManBearPig! A greedy, corrupt, Progressive Douche Bag is more like it. - 10:00... John Kerry - Douche Bag. No, there was never a consensus. Never. And definitely NOT on "Main Street." I feel so dirty for voting for him. "I can't get clean " Oh well, it was my first time voting [18] and I pretty much just watched the Daily Show. - "12:28"... "You don't trust me?" No, McCaskill. You are Progressive (Female) Douche Bag. - "12:48"... Lindsey Graham called a traitor. Damn Straight. He is a Progressive Douche Bag, just with a R instead of a D. Same thing... Progressivism is the Cancer of America. "14:45"... (Brit Speaking) In American speech, you have a word for Global Warming... Bullshit. "19:05" - "You are the teacher, I raise my hand...[Man Made]" "Mostly. Scientists keep trying to shoot it down, over years and years and years, and nobody has been able to. So at some point you have to say, maybe it's right." No... it's Bullshit. Quade still spews all his Progressive BS history, over and over and over again. Just like in Wendy's recent thread. Doesn't make him right. Especially not when he uses Wiki as a source. Progressivism has been eating away at our Founding Principles since Teddy... we (American's who support the Constitution and true [through original sources] Founding Principles) will eventually destroy it. It has taken us 100 years to get here... may take just as long to Restore. "19:50"... No, the answer is... Money and Power. Human Nature. "21:04"... "the science around 2nd hand smoke." OH, FUCK OFF... Condescending Douche. There is no Money and Power surrounding awareness of lung cancer. Also... anyone who thought tobacco wasn't harmful for you "back in the day", is a MORON... there were many who knew it was bad. One of them was a baseball player who refused to have chewing tobacco ads on the back of his cards. Great Man! Cared about this kids! Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? [And then they cut him off when he starts to talk about 2nd hand smoke.] "30:35" - 3 simple questions about climate change. Nice! Republican Cowards! "32:50" - John Kerry No John... its not money that is beating you. Its common sense and Founding Principles, and we know you are a Progressive Douche Bag, and we know what you are trying to do. We read history, We know who Teddy, Wilson, and FDR truly are. Uh Oh... Kerry said Gun Shy... he is inciting gun usage and violence. Throw him in Jail! "35:25" - Financial Crisis --> Lead to Ease of Money Influence --> Lead to Increase Denial. Yeah... ManBearPig. Bullshit. What a Douche Bag... in lame duck session he says. "98 doctors say treat this way. 2 say this way. Going with the 2, is a big risk." As a Paramedic... that example is BS, with no Money and Power involved in the action taken. And Medicine is 100% different than "Climate Science." Douche Bag. "39:15" - Common Sense "I rely on whatever science makes good sense." Well stated! "40:54" - "The problem is, I mean, NC, beach fronts, are very close to sea level. You are very close and you are vulnerable to hurricane effects, storm surges, and you are vulnerable because of high tides. Those vulnerabilities don't go away because you legislate them away" OMG... what a fuck tard. DON'T LIVE ON THE OCEAN FRONT, or in a fish bowl (New Orleans). Bullshit... none of those things have anything to do with "Climate Change." Nor do earthquakes, fires or whatever other crap you spew. So Stupid. "The ocean is gonna win." Yes, Sherlocke Holmes. Mother Nature always wins. And nothing we do will change anything it does. Its all money... Gas and Oil Corporations... Blah Blah Blah. Whatever. "45:35" - NICE! "If dealing with GW/CC did not involve intervention in the economy would heartland institute be involved in this?" "That is a theoretical question. We believe in LIMITED GOVERNMENT, free markets, we believe in identifying and implementing sound science, free market solution's to societal problems." EXACTLY!! LIMITED GOVERNMENT ... FOUNDING PRINCIPLES. Koch Brothers... Blah Blah Blah. If I made (I Built It!) a medical invention that gained me 1 billion dollars... and then I opened up "Coco for Liberty Foundation" and gave millions to support Limited Government, Low Taxes, Responsible Spending, adherence to the Constitution... and fought Progressivism, cap and trade, single payer, Dept of Education, Light Rail and many other Commerce Clause violations... it is no different. It's not Big Medicine. IT'S FOUNDING PRINCIPLES! Donor's Trust... So you mean like the Progressives; Tide's Foundation? "48:42" Green is the new Red. Yes, it absolutely is... Agenda 21. And Money and Power, of course. Then they show Obama, then McCain, then Romney all speaking about needing to do something about climate change. [song] One little two little three little Progressives... One has a D, Two have an R. [song] Progressives! Then Pelosi and Newton (Huge Douche Progressive - R) together in an ad. Then he tells Hannity, because, he is stupid. No... it's because you are a Progressive. You and McCain... are like Teddy. Quote Global Warming... Climate Change... Whatever you wanna call it. Is Bullshit. As George Washington said... Meet me on the Battlefield of Ideas. We are winning, and with the truth... Founding Principles Will Win. Quote Worth your time, but its BS... Global Warming is a scam for Power and Money. They give no evidence to prove anything, its basically just a "history" of the last 10 years... and they blame money as to why they are losing the arguments. Oh and... shall we end with the Progressive "God" Joel Rogers. Saying you can shut down the entire economy, every power plant, every car, everything... and it would do nothing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bh3jWqiUw0 And of course, Capitalism is evil. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx0VeISXD20 Although what he is actually talking about, is Crony Capitalism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 October 25, 2012 "The problem is, I mean, NC, beach fronts, are very close to sea level. You are very close and you are vulnerable to hurricane effects, storm surges, and you are vulnerable because of high tides. Those vulnerabilities don't go away because you legislate them away" This is, to me, the primo example of the politics of climate change. The NC legislation being “anti-science.” Why? Because the NC legislation said that sea-level forecasts must also be based on historical data. Yes. You read that right. NC legislation says that there must be raw observational data involved when making a forecast. Now, it went too far the other way, perhaps, by saying that you must only use raw data to determine the trend. But it’s also understood that using historical raw measurements would be DEATH to doom predictions. It’s also a powerful indication that raw data is not used. The scientific process demands observational data. Scientific prediction is “hypothesis.” The scientific process means testing the prediction by observational data. Here’s the question: who has perverted the scientific process more? Those who claim science and make predictions of “no snow by 2010?” Or those who say, “Look at the past observations? It’s happened before.” Or perhaps, “It’s been a hundred years and the sea level isn’t rising” Or those who say, “Sea level rise may be a problem but we know that interglacial rebound is a problem.” The vulnerabilities? Yep. They have always been there. They will continue to be. But you better base damage predictions on past events. Otherwise, it’s arbitrary. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #23 October 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteDisappointing. It had an agenda to make deniers look like the result of the tea party and a few quacks. Since that's what they ARE, what's your problem? Is this how you would define me, John? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #24 October 25, 2012 QuoteQuote Anyone care to give a synopsis? It basically recounted how both the science and dangers of global warming were accepted by both parties until fairly recently. Then a small number of scientist and conservative groups started to question the science, many of these groups received funding from the big oil companies. The belief that global warming was a lie then spread to the tea party, and that''s where the campaign for not electing or re-electing anyone that voiced a belief in global warming really took off. The cause then gained more momentum with funding from the likes of the Koch brothers and large anonymous donor's, who were able to hide their identity. Because of the very extreme nature of the global warming deniers, they ended up loosing the support of big oil. They say that now Republican politicians will not speak out in favor of global warming due to the fact that there will be a ton of money provided to their Tea party backed challenger. This has also made some Democrats very shy from discussing the issue. Global warming was never mentioned in the recent Presidential debates Like all of the other Fronline's, I thought it was a really good show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,033 #25 October 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteDisappointing. It had an agenda to make deniers look like the result of the tea party and a few quacks. Since that's what they ARE, what's your problem? Is this how you would define me, John? Are you a "denier" then?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
