I don't doubt that the government has an agenda. But for a claim like this, or any other conspiracy theory, the burden of proof is on the accuser. And so far I don't see anything that holds water.
Generally, I agree with you. The problem with situations involving the government is that most of the time any "proof" of wrong doing is hidden away or classified. It's not publicly available, so even if someone is 100% right in what they are saying, that person has no way to prove it. So while there is a "burden or proof", sometimes that burden is impossible to actually meet, even if you are correct in your claim.
Well, with chem trails, the proof is not hidden away. It's in the air, above you. Anyone with the right equipment can analyze the contrails and see if there are some unuusal chemicals in there. No one has to rely on a government officials to tell them about it.
Another aspect to consider: Let's say those staged terrorist attack proposal had gone through. Are you certain that there wouldn't have been someone figuring it out, or releasing information - some whistle blower?
Snowden is not the first or the last whistle blower that reveals classified information that the government would have preferred to stay secret.
The Watergate scandal had a tiny amount of people involved, each of them with high motivation not to reveal anything, and it still came out. A false flag terrorist operation would likely have involved a lot more people. Just as a chemtrail operation. Or a fake moon landing. Or a lot of other things.
So, a couple of key differences between your comparisons:
1) the Operations Northwoods plans involved creating false evidence. So if someone tried to expose it, the general public and the media would simply point to the false evidence and call the person a crazy conspiracy theorist.
2) Unlike Watergate or Snowden, the Northwoords plans involved actual murder. If they were willing to murder people as part of the plan itself, they definitely would have been willing to murder people who would expose the plans, or their families.
So yes, there are people who expose a lot of things. But most of those plans don't involve a clear willingness to kill people, and I would argue that knowing your family might die is a much stronger motivation to keep quiet than simply having to live in exile like Snowden.
Oh come on with all this I need training BS ok. I base what I see on what going on, and how I viewed this world from when I was a kid, until now. And I can say we are going through a planet change. Is it do to us 100% I don't think so. I figure it's a natural event that happens from time to time on the planet Earth. No one needs to study any school books on the weather, just learn how to read nature as a whole.
Oh and BTW is climate change happening? Yes, it's called..........Summer, Fall, Winter, and Spring. You know the 4 seasons, and the climate always changes under these conditions.
Have a nice life, then.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Hawkwing43, make up your mind. First you say "So are chemtrails the reason why we have wild weather now?" Then you say that you don't mean that chemtrails are causing the wild weather, you mean that contrails in general are, but chemtrails are another problem as well. Then you say rude things about "the 4 seasons" and seem to deny that the weather has been wilder than usual anyway. P.S. I live in the North of England. Believe me, it has been getting wilder.
As for the video clip itself, I agree with Jonsills - there are no relevant "documents" shown or named in it at all; all it shows directly is some pages of logs from some drone showing nothing more alarming than position, altitude and air pressure readings, and the title of a study, which is "Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise Emissions 2014". The first thing that that suggests is definitely not a chemtrail project! (Unless there's something more impressive after 1:10 - it stopped working at that point.)
The hackers are making a lot of claims about what they've found in the rest of the data, and threatening to release all the documents themselves if NASA don't release them "within the month". Well, if they do that, and there's something there that looks more relevant than "Alternative Fuels...", then I'll take them seriously; meanwhile, I'll reserve judgment until then!
"They claim that they were discovered and lost access to the NASA servers after attempting to take control of a Global Hawk drone and crash it into the Pacific Ocean..." The hackers sound a bit daft. Seems surprising that they could have got as far as they claim; but we know that one chronically stoned computer technician once TRIBBLE the Pentagon, for months on end. So it's possible - it's not how clever the hackers are that matters, it's how gormless the NASA staff are!
Oh, of COURSE! Thread censoring mystery solved! I forgot - for some mysterious reason, the only word this board still censors is "h a c k e d". Now, why on Earth is that?
Hawk, "weather" =/= "climate". I can assure you that the climate is changing - I can cite you the specific instances and evidence based on what I can see out my own window. (Pine trees, for instance, thrive where the climate is drier and more temperate, while firs and cedars thrive in a wetter clime with colder winters and milder summers. The local forests, once mostly cedar and fir, have been transitioning to pine forest over the past two or three decades, as the weather locally has become drier and the summers hotter.) I can further assure you that the few thousands of aircraft flights over the area pale in comparison to the millions of miles covered by cars every year in this region alone.
Climatology is an actual science, you know. You can study it. (So is chemistry, as long as we're more or less still on the "chemtrail" subject.) And as long as you proclaim your unwillingness to learn about the science, we can assign as much significance to your ranting as we would do, say, someone pronouncing the superiority of homeopathy over medical science.
Hawk, there's nothing added. Contrails are exactly what they appear to be, and what chemistry and physics would demand to happen under those circumstances.
There is some evidence that the "wild weather" is in fact the cumulative effect of humans pouring megatons of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere of Earth starting at the beginning of the Industrial Age; there is some discussion of the exact degree to which that's responsible for the overall warming of the planet, but only a few diehards are trying to argue that it's not a factor at all.
There is, on the other tentacle, absolutely no evidence for this silly "chemtrail" idea, and even less for the concept that these "chemtrails", flimsy as they are, could possibly be affecting the climate of the entire planet in any major fashion by themselves. Don't take my word for it; study the science for yourself, then observe the data once you have the background for it. You'll find the conclusions inescapable.
No my point is..............If your blame cars for making issues with the climate, then how can you say Planes that fly higher up are not doing worst from what's coming from them. Just to be clear on where I stand.
The height at which you release CO2 in the atmosphere is not necessarily relevant to determine its effects.
Planes contribute, as cars and coal plants or ships do. But there is a lot more car traffic in the world than there is plane traffic, and consequently, cars burn a lot more gas and produce a lot more CO2 then planes do.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Hawk, "weather" =/= "climate". I can assure you that the climate is changing - I can cite you the specific instances and evidence based on what I can see out my own window. (Pine trees, for instance, thrive where the climate is drier and more temperate, while firs and cedars thrive in a wetter clime with colder winters and milder summers. The local forests, once mostly cedar and fir, have been transitioning to pine forest over the past two or three decades, as the weather locally has become drier and the summers hotter.) I can further assure you that the few thousands of aircraft flights over the area pale in comparison to the millions of miles covered by cars every year in this region alone.
Climatology is an actual science, you know. You can study it. (So is chemistry, as long as we're more or less still on the "chemtrail" subject.) And as long as you proclaim your unwillingness to learn about the science, we can assign as much significance to your ranting as we would do, say, someone pronouncing the superiority of homeopathy over medical science.
This is quite true. Iran used to be a nice place to live! It's still disputed, but there is evidence that the Great Sphinx was damaged by torrential rains. The SW US used to be a lot less arid.... and by that I mean that several hundred years ago it was less arid than it was 100 years ago.
Hawk, "weather" =/= "climate". I can assure you that the climate is changing - I can cite you the specific instances and evidence based on what I can see out my own window. (Pine trees, for instance, thrive where the climate is drier and more temperate, while firs and cedars thrive in a wetter clime with colder winters and milder summers. The local forests, once mostly cedar and fir, have been transitioning to pine forest over the past two or three decades, as the weather locally has become drier and the summers hotter.) I can further assure you that the few thousands of aircraft flights over the area pale in comparison to the millions of miles covered by cars every year in this region alone.
Climatology is an actual science, you know. You can study it. (So is chemistry, as long as we're more or less still on the "chemtrail" subject.) And as long as you proclaim your unwillingness to learn about the science, we can assign as much significance to your ranting as we would do, say, someone pronouncing the superiority of homeopathy over medical science.
Oh course I know that. But before we start letting political know it all people tell us what is right and wrong, why not get the FACTS right, before we get taxed to dead to fix the WRONG problems.
I remember one of these guys named Al Gore, remember him and his FACTS on the topic.
Then you have the USA giving out 2.5 billion dollars in climate science money, and you can only get it IF you do studies in the field. And I am very sure your finding better agree with the talking points, or else YOU DON'T GET ANY NEW MONEY.
Hawk, "weather" =/= "climate". I can assure you that the climate is changing - I can cite you the specific instances and evidence based on what I can see out my own window. (Pine trees, for instance, thrive where the climate is drier and more temperate, while firs and cedars thrive in a wetter clime with colder winters and milder summers. The local forests, once mostly cedar and fir, have been transitioning to pine forest over the past two or three decades, as the weather locally has become drier and the summers hotter.) I can further assure you that the few thousands of aircraft flights over the area pale in comparison to the millions of miles covered by cars every year in this region alone.
Climatology is an actual science, you know. You can study it. (So is chemistry, as long as we're more or less still on the "chemtrail" subject.) And as long as you proclaim your unwillingness to learn about the science, we can assign as much significance to your ranting as we would do, say, someone pronouncing the superiority of homeopathy over medical science.
This is quite true. Iran used to be a nice place to live! It's still disputed, but there is evidence that the Great Sphinx was damaged by torrential rains. The SW US used to be a lot less arid.... and by that I mean that several hundred years ago it was less arid than it was 100 years ago.
Well if your going to use that example, how about the case that the area was once a huge jungle? But of course that was many many years ago.
I was going to type out another post full of facts and actual information, but you know what? I'm tired of wasting my time trying to educate people who don't want to be educated, and who would rather believe global climate change is due to something being done by Da Gubbmint (who can apparently carry this plan out flawlessly over decades without a single leak, while being unable to launch a simple health-care website without TRIBBLE it up) than accept that it's just the consequence of something humans in general have been doing since like forever and we might have to spend a little money cleaning it up.
It's the ozone thing all over again, except this time we can't seem to get people to understand that a few simple changes that won't directly affect their own lifestyles can help. At least we managed to get that problem under control before ignorance became so very aggressive...
Anyways, enjoy having the thread to yourself, Hawk - well, you and any other conspiracy fans who are willing to put up with your continued denigration of facts in favor of Fox-News-inspired claptrap about "chemtrails" somehow changing the planetary climate all on their own.
I was going to type out another post full of facts and actual information, but you know what? I'm tired of wasting my time trying to educate people who don't want to be educated, and who would rather believe global climate change is due to something being done by Da Gubbmint (who can apparently carry this plan out flawlessly over decades without a single leak, while being unable to launch a simple health-care website without TRIBBLE it up) than accept that it's just the consequence of something humans in general have been doing since like forever and we might have to spend a little money cleaning it up.
It's the ozone thing all over again, except this time we can't seem to get people to understand that a few simple changes that won't directly affect their own lifestyles can help. At least we managed to get that problem under control before ignorance became so very aggressive...
Anyways, enjoy having the thread to yourself, Hawk - well, you and any other conspiracy fans who are willing to put up with your continued denigration of facts in favor of Fox-News-inspired claptrap about "chemtrails" somehow changing the planetary climate all on their own.
It goes both ways my friend. I just point out it's not all facts, you still don't have everyone on the same page with this topic. And still do you really think a carbon tax will save this planet? Just asking.
I have not seen one thing about "chemtrails" on Fox News...trust me, this mess isn't coming from there. Better to blame the "History" or "Learning" Channels, based on my observation, because the amount of conspiracy and pseudoscience garbage those two channels are hawking is truly astounding.
As for me, I don't see any conspiracy other than an annoying tendency to treat science as a political football, that does make me suspicious that at times the scientific method is not being followed to anywhere near the rigor it should in this area. It's not malice or conspiracy...it's just garden variety groupthink and incompetence. Now you might think it's funny that I say that yet also recycle and drive a hybrid. Thing is, I can look around me and see enough common sense reasons to try to treat the environment nicely. Regardless of what I think about climate change I CAN see a clear correlation between smog and things like asthma, and common sense tells me that's not good in the lungs of people and animals. And similarly, common sense tells me that if a resource is limited, blowing through it like it's no big deal is stupid and if I can cut my usage down, then I should. I don't need or care about anything a bunch of talking heads in DC say, to look around me and make my choice.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Then you have the USA giving out 2.5 billion dollars in climate science money, and you can only get it IF you do studies in the field. And I am very sure your finding better agree with the talking points, or else YOU DON'T GET ANY NEW MONEY.
Obviously as the US is the only country in the world it is understandable you can't collect data from outside the US. Hell it's not even as though you can do the bleeding research yourself. But, hey, why bother when you can watch youtube videos of a bunch of nutters sticking their fingers in their ears shouting 'lalalala'.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Then you have the USA giving out 2.5 billion dollars in climate science money, and you can only get it IF you do studies in the field. And I am very sure your finding better agree with the talking points, or else YOU DON'T GET ANY NEW MONEY.
Obviously as the US is the only country in the world it is understandable you can't collect data from outside the US. Hell it's not even as though you can do the bleeding research yourself. But, hey, why bother when you can watch youtube videos of a bunch of nutters sticking their fingers in their ears shouting 'lalalala'.
Again that is to show this isn't a cut and dry issue that was settled. But if you want to just give the government more of your hard eared money, but all means go ahead to cut them a bigger check. At the end of the day this whole issue is over money, and how much more they can bleed out of the people's pockets. We point to show their are groups putting stuff in the air, and yet you call it BS. we point to show regular planes are still pumping higher levels of fumes into the air, but that's ok too. It's all BS. Hell if you had zero carbon fuel anything, and we still had this issue of climate change as it's called. I am sure someone would say look the electric cars are the issue, TAX them too so we can save the planet. Oh that's right they keep floating a mileage tax, so they can have that ready too, if more people stop using gas cars. Most of you might want to keep playing this game, and repeating the party lines, but this guy is tried of all this BS they can push on us. Yes, yes I know you have degrees in whatever science, so what. At the end of the day you still got to get your hands dirty to really know what's going on. You can learn that in any BOOK. Tell that to your FREE LOVE Flower Power 60s teachers.
Again that is to show this isn't a cut and dry issue that was settled. But if you want to just give the government more of your hard eared money, but all means go ahead to cut them a bigger check.
No thanks. A lack of overwhelming privatisation and a socialist government means my tax is (by large) spent efficiently. I'm quite happy in my current bracket, though we could do with lower energy costs.
We point to show their are groups putting stuff in the air, and yet you call it BS. we point to show regular planes are still pumping higher levels of fumes into the air, but that's ok too. It's all BS.
That's right. Except I'm not calling it BS, I'm calling it bollocks. You seem to be mixing up pollution with this chemtrail TRIBBLE. You see if wither existed it could be tested for (by even you) in your backyard to little cost. High levels of particulates (such as those produced from diesel) are easy to test for. So too should be these 'chemtrails'. Try providing some empirical evidence not gleamed from a conspiracy circlejerk.
Hell if you had zero carbon fuel anything, and we still had this issue of climate change as it's called. I am sure someone would say look the electric cars are the issue, TAX them too so we can save the planet.
Do you understand how the electricity is currently produced? I know concepts like that may seem like magic, but there is a network of powerstations called the National Grid, a network of coal and gas fired stations supplying that electricity.
So no. Electric cars are not a contributor directly, you know that, everybody knows that, so why bother coming out with the statement? You know perfectly well electricity can be generated using renewable sources and you also know you can't get taxed for having solar panels (up until recently the government would actually pay you to install them providing the surplus went to the National Grid) or most other renewables.
Yes, yes I know you have degrees in whatever science, so what. At the end of the day you still got to get your hands dirty to really know what's going on. You can learn that in any BOOK. Tell that to your FREE LOVE Flower Power 60s teachers.
How do you mean get your hands dirty? You mean by working in the environmental health sector? Oh, I kinda do. Also, what 'FREE LOVE Flower Power 60s teachers'? I was taught by a bunch of people in their 30s and 40s. It's like you're just guessing now. It's not part of alternative culture to understand the concept of limited resources.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Hawk, "weather" =/= "climate". I can assure you that the climate is changing - I can cite you the specific instances and evidence based on what I can see out my own window. (Pine trees, for instance, thrive where the climate is drier and more temperate, while firs and cedars thrive in a wetter clime with colder winters and milder summers. The local forests, once mostly cedar and fir, have been transitioning to pine forest over the past two or three decades, as the weather locally has become drier and the summers hotter.) I can further assure you that the few thousands of aircraft flights over the area pale in comparison to the millions of miles covered by cars every year in this region alone.
Climatology is an actual science, you know. You can study it. (So is chemistry, as long as we're more or less still on the "chemtrail" subject.) And as long as you proclaim your unwillingness to learn about the science, we can assign as much significance to your ranting as we would do, say, someone pronouncing the superiority of homeopathy over medical science.
This is quite true. Iran used to be a nice place to live! It's still disputed, but there is evidence that the Great Sphinx was damaged by torrential rains. The SW US used to be a lot less arid.... and by that I mean that several hundred years ago it was less arid than it was 100 years ago.
Well if your going to use that example, how about the case that the area was once a huge jungle? But of course that was many many years ago.
Point still stands though.
The climate has been changing throughout all of recorded history. It was never stable. Therefore it takes identifying a cause of climate change to determine whether a specific example of climate change is or isn't natural.
Hawk, "weather" =/= "climate". I can assure you that the climate is changing - I can cite you the specific instances and evidence based on what I can see out my own window. (Pine trees, for instance, thrive where the climate is drier and more temperate, while firs and cedars thrive in a wetter clime with colder winters and milder summers. The local forests, once mostly cedar and fir, have been transitioning to pine forest over the past two or three decades, as the weather locally has become drier and the summers hotter.) I can further assure you that the few thousands of aircraft flights over the area pale in comparison to the millions of miles covered by cars every year in this region alone.
Climatology is an actual science, you know. You can study it. (So is chemistry, as long as we're more or less still on the "chemtrail" subject.) And as long as you proclaim your unwillingness to learn about the science, we can assign as much significance to your ranting as we would do, say, someone pronouncing the superiority of homeopathy over medical science.
This is quite true. Iran used to be a nice place to live! It's still disputed, but there is evidence that the Great Sphinx was damaged by torrential rains. The SW US used to be a lot less arid.... and by that I mean that several hundred years ago it was less arid than it was 100 years ago.
Well if your going to use that example, how about the case that the area was once a huge jungle? But of course that was many many years ago.
Point still stands though.
The climate has been changing throughout all of recorded history. It was never stable. Therefore it takes identifying a cause of climate change to determine whether a specific example of climate change is or isn't natural.
Then you have the external forces at work too. How much of what is coming from space effects us down here over time? This is still more examples I keep pointing too, you can't say it's happening due to one or two things. You like at the whole picture, and use the facts to back your findings. Not plug in numbers in a computer model, and hope you get what you want it to be. Look to history, and learn from the past, it will show what the future brings.
Again that is to show this isn't a cut and dry issue that was settled. But if you want to just give the government more of your hard eared money, but all means go ahead to cut them a bigger check.
No thanks. A lack of overwhelming privatisation and a socialist government means my tax is (by large) spent efficiently. I'm quite happy in my current bracket, though we could do with lower energy costs.
We point to show their are groups putting stuff in the air, and yet you call it BS. we point to show regular planes are still pumping higher levels of fumes into the air, but that's ok too. It's all BS.
That's right. Except I'm not calling it BS, I'm calling it bollocks. You seem to be mixing up pollution with this chemtrail TRIBBLE. You see if wither existed it could be tested for (by even you) in your backyard to little cost. High levels of particulates (such as those produced from diesel) are easy to test for. So too should be these 'chemtrails'. Try providing some empirical evidence not gleamed from a conspiracy circlejerk.
Hell if you had zero carbon fuel anything, and we still had this issue of climate change as it's called. I am sure someone would say look the electric cars are the issue, TAX them too so we can save the planet.
Do you understand how the electricity is currently produced? I know concepts like that may seem like magic, but there is a network of powerstations called the National Grid, a network of coal and gas fired stations supplying that electricity.
So no. Electric cars are not a contributor directly, you know that, everybody knows that, so why bother coming out with the statement? You know perfectly well electricity can be generated using renewable sources and you also know you can't get taxed for having solar panels (up until recently the government would actually pay you to install them providing the surplus went to the National Grid) or most other renewables.
Yes, yes I know you have degrees in whatever science, so what. At the end of the day you still got to get your hands dirty to really know what's going on. You can learn that in any BOOK. Tell that to your FREE LOVE Flower Power 60s teachers.
How do you mean get your hands dirty? You mean by working in the environmental health sector? Oh, I kinda do. Also, what 'FREE LOVE Flower Power 60s teachers'? I was taught by a bunch of people in their 30s and 40s. It's like you're just guessing now. It's not part of alternative culture to understand the concept of limited resources.
Not all teachers are bad, but you still have a few rotten apples in the bunch.
Oh course I know that. But before we start letting political know it all people tell us what is right and wrong, why not get the FACTS right, before we get taxed to dead to fix the WRONG problems.
I remember one of these guys named Al Gore, remember him and his FACTS on the topic.
Then you have the USA giving out 2.5 billion dollars in climate science money, and you can only get it IF you do studies in the field. And I am very sure your finding better agree with the talking points, or else YOU DON'T GET ANY NEW MONEY.
Actually, I hear a lot of scientists (on a mailing list I belong to, http://www.sgr.org.uk ) complaining that, at least in America, it's the scientists who say climate change ISN'T caused by burning fossil fuels who get money thrown at them however rubbish their science is, by all the bogus "scientific foundations" and "charitable foundations" that are in fact set up and funded by oil companies.
As for taxes, it's not all on one side. I don't know if you're aware that HUGE amounts of taxpayers' money are spent on subsidising the fossil fuel industry. (At least, that's true here in the UK. The USA is slightly better, though it still amounts to billions, and to their credit the US government are at least making somewhat serious-looking plans to phase it out, which our government aren't. see http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/uk-breaks-pledge-to-become-only-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies ) Less of that malarkey, for a start, would mean less taxes for us or else being able to spend them on something better like our health services.
Most of you might want to keep playing this game, and repeating the party lines, but this guy is tried of all this BS they can push on us. Yes, yes I know you have degrees in whatever science, so what. At the end of the day you still got to get your hands dirty to really know what's going on. You can learn that in any BOOK. Tell that to your FREE LOVE Flower Power 60s teachers.
Hawkwing, how have you found out what's really going on by "getting your hands dirty"? You've never explained what you meant by that.
Hell if you had zero carbon fuel anything, and we still had this issue of climate change as it's called. I am sure someone would say look the electric cars are the issue, TAX them too so we can save the planet.
Do you understand how the electricity is currently produced? I know concepts like that may seem like magic, but there is a network of powerstations called the National Grid, a network of coal and gas fired stations supplying that electricity.
So no. Electric cars are not a contributor directly, you know that, everybody knows that, so why bother coming out with the statement? You know perfectly well electricity can be generated using renewable sources and you also know you can't get taxed for having solar panels (up until recently the government would actually pay you to install them providing the surplus went to the National Grid) or most other renewables.
Artan: To be fair, that's not what Hawkwing said - he didn't say that they currently WERE blaming electric cars - he said if there were no petrol cars to blame, governments would probably try to come up with a reason to say electric cars were bad, so they'd have something to tax.
We point to show their are groups putting stuff in the air, and yet you call it BS. we point to show regular planes are still pumping higher levels of fumes into the air, but that's ok too. It's all BS.
That's right. Except I'm not calling it BS, I'm calling it bollocks. You seem to be mixing up pollution with this chemtrail TRIBBLE. You see if wither existed it could be tested for (by even you) in your backyard to little cost. High levels of particulates (such as those produced from diesel) are easy to test for. So too should be these 'chemtrails'. Try providing some empirical evidence not gleamed from a conspiracy circlejerk.
Artan: How would you do that, what kind of equipment/tests? I'm always interested in that kind of thing.
Seems to me that it would be difficult to make tests at home of something that's being emitted high in the sky. Though, thinking about it, most of these allegations (except the one about changing the weather) assume that the chemicals are eventually falling to earth, in which case you'd expect to be able to measure them at that point.
Hell if you had zero carbon fuel anything, and we still had this issue of climate change as it's called. I am sure someone would say look the electric cars are the issue, TAX them too so we can save the planet.
Do you understand how the electricity is currently produced? I know concepts like that may seem like magic, but there is a network of powerstations called the National Grid, a network of coal and gas fired stations supplying that electricity.
So no. Electric cars are not a contributor directly, you know that, everybody knows that, so why bother coming out with the statement? You know perfectly well electricity can be generated using renewable sources and you also know you can't get taxed for having solar panels (up until recently the government would actually pay you to install them providing the surplus went to the National Grid) or most other renewables.
Artan: To be fair, that's not what Hawkwing said - he didn't say that they currently WERE blaming electric cars - he said if there were no petrol cars to blame, governments would probably try to come up with a reason to say electric cars were bad, so they'd have something to tax.
Yeah, the point was about using fear mongering as a political tool. Which is very common in any discussion about "why" the subject is important.
Oh course I know that. But before we start letting political know it all people tell us what is right and wrong, why not get the FACTS right, before we get taxed to dead to fix the WRONG problems.
I remember one of these guys named Al Gore, remember him and his FACTS on the topic.
Then you have the USA giving out 2.5 billion dollars in climate science money, and you can only get it IF you do studies in the field. And I am very sure your finding better agree with the talking points, or else YOU DON'T GET ANY NEW MONEY.
Actually, I hear a lot of scientists (on a mailing list I belong to, http://www.sgr.org.uk ) complaining that, at least in America, it's the scientists who say climate change ISN'T caused by burning fossil fuels who get money thrown at them however rubbish their science is, by all the bogus "scientific foundations" and "charitable foundations" that are in fact set up and funded by oil companies.
As for taxes, it's not all on one side. I don't know if you're aware that HUGE amounts of taxpayers' money are spent on subsidising the fossil fuel industry. (At least, that's true here in the UK. The USA is slightly better, though it still amounts to billions, and to their credit the US government are at least making somewhat serious-looking plans to phase it out, which our government aren't. see http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/uk-breaks-pledge-to-become-only-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies ) Less of that malarkey, for a start, would mean less taxes for us or else being able to spend them on something better like our health services.
Most of you might want to keep playing this game, and repeating the party lines, but this guy is tried of all this BS they can push on us. Yes, yes I know you have degrees in whatever science, so what. At the end of the day you still got to get your hands dirty to really know what's going on. You can learn that in any BOOK. Tell that to your FREE LOVE Flower Power 60s teachers.
Hawkwing, how have you found out what's really going on by "getting your hands dirty"? You've never explained what you meant by that.
Hell if you had zero carbon fuel anything, and we still had this issue of climate change as it's called. I am sure someone would say look the electric cars are the issue, TAX them too so we can save the planet.
Do you understand how the electricity is currently produced? I know concepts like that may seem like magic, but there is a network of powerstations called the National Grid, a network of coal and gas fired stations supplying that electricity.
So no. Electric cars are not a contributor directly, you know that, everybody knows that, so why bother coming out with the statement? You know perfectly well electricity can be generated using renewable sources and you also know you can't get taxed for having solar panels (up until recently the government would actually pay you to install them providing the surplus went to the National Grid) or most other renewables.
Artan: To be fair, that's not what Hawkwing said - he didn't say that they currently WERE blaming electric cars - he said if there were no petrol cars to blame, governments would probably try to come up with a reason to say electric cars were bad, so they'd have something to tax.
We point to show their are groups putting stuff in the air, and yet you call it BS. we point to show regular planes are still pumping higher levels of fumes into the air, but that's ok too. It's all BS.
That's right. Except I'm not calling it BS, I'm calling it bollocks. You seem to be mixing up pollution with this chemtrail TRIBBLE. You see if wither existed it could be tested for (by even you) in your backyard to little cost. High levels of particulates (such as those produced from diesel) are easy to test for. So too should be these 'chemtrails'. Try providing some empirical evidence not gleamed from a conspiracy circlejerk.
Artan: How would you do that, what kind of equipment/tests? I'm always interested in that kind of thing.
Seems to me that it would be difficult to make tests at home of something that's being emitted high in the sky. Though, thinking about it, most of these allegations (except the one about changing the weather) assume that the chemicals are eventually falling to earth, in which case you'd expect to be able to measure them at that point.
1st the tax part I wouldn't mind, IF there wasn't so make waste and fraud going on. They spend so much of the money we work hard to earn on themselves, or just waste the money of projects that just don't work. Sure some money is spend where it needs to good, but over all if there was a way to account for all the money, I am sure we wouldn't be getting taxed to death right now.
2nd The "getting your hands dirty" is a saying correct? Meaning get out and do it for yourself. I for one DON'T just sit back and let someone tell me, this is how it is, and don't dare question what I just said, cause what I said is based in FACTS. When all the time it's really based in option. When it comes to the worlds climate, and they say it's us doing it. I look outside the box at what happened before. Sure you can say look it's hotter now in one area vs what is was last year, but then the following year it's now cooler. Can you blame humans for this change in weather, or is it just a normal cycle of the weather? From what I have seen in my walk in life I have a great example. I spend two summers in one area. The 1st summer it was very wet, it rained every other day, it was so much water that the gnats were everywhere. The following year it was super hot, and it didn't rain much at all. Many couple times a months, but that was it. Oh and no Gnats that year. Now granted I only spent two years in that area, and it was only for the summer. To understand the weather patterns of that area, you would need live there. But that's an example of how the weather was in that one area. Now were I live, my weather is so wild, I can't say we are the ones doing. BUT, that one year when Mt. St Helens blew it's top, the summer in my area stayed cool, maybe one of two days went into the 80s, but mainly it stayed down in the 70s. This is what I remember, I also remember at the time the weather people sucked, they would say today it's not going to rain, then it rained, and tomorrow it's going to rain and it was sunny. lol
Hell if you had zero carbon fuel anything, and we still had this issue of climate change as it's called. I am sure someone would say look the electric cars are the issue, TAX them too so we can save the planet.
Do you understand how the electricity is currently produced? I know concepts like that may seem like magic, but there is a network of powerstations called the National Grid, a network of coal and gas fired stations supplying that electricity.
So no. Electric cars are not a contributor directly, you know that, everybody knows that, so why bother coming out with the statement? You know perfectly well electricity can be generated using renewable sources and you also know you can't get taxed for having solar panels (up until recently the government would actually pay you to install them providing the surplus went to the National Grid) or most other renewables.
Artan: To be fair, that's not what Hawkwing said - he didn't say that they currently WERE blaming electric cars - he said if there were no petrol cars to blame, governments would probably try to come up with a reason to say electric cars were bad, so they'd have something to tax.
Yeah, the point was about using fear mongering as a political tool. Which is very common in any discussion about "why" the subject is important.
Fear is used by everyone who wants to control you. Gets me mad to know how much is used against us.
Oh course I know that. But before we start letting political know it all people tell us what is right and wrong, why not get the FACTS right, before we get taxed to dead to fix the WRONG problems.
I remember one of these guys named Al Gore, remember him and his FACTS on the topic.
Then you have the USA giving out 2.5 billion dollars in climate science money, and you can only get it IF you do studies in the field. And I am very sure your finding better agree with the talking points, or else YOU DON'T GET ANY NEW MONEY.
Actually, I hear a lot of scientists (on a mailing list I belong to, http://www.sgr.org.uk ) complaining that, at least in America, it's the scientists who say climate change ISN'T caused by burning fossil fuels who get money thrown at them however rubbish their science is, by all the bogus "scientific foundations" and "charitable foundations" that are in fact set up and funded by oil companies.
As for taxes, it's not all on one side. I don't know if you're aware that HUGE amounts of taxpayers' money are spent on subsidising the fossil fuel industry. (At least, that's true here in the UK. The USA is slightly better, though it still amounts to billions, and to their credit the US government are at least making somewhat serious-looking plans to phase it out, which our government aren't. see http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/uk-breaks-pledge-to-become-only-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies ) Less of that malarkey, for a start, would mean less taxes for us or else being able to spend them on something better like our health services.
Most of you might want to keep playing this game, and repeating the party lines, but this guy is tried of all this BS they can push on us. Yes, yes I know you have degrees in whatever science, so what. At the end of the day you still got to get your hands dirty to really know what's going on. You can learn that in any BOOK. Tell that to your FREE LOVE Flower Power 60s teachers.
Hawkwing, how have you found out what's really going on by "getting your hands dirty"? You've never explained what you meant by that.
Hell if you had zero carbon fuel anything, and we still had this issue of climate change as it's called. I am sure someone would say look the electric cars are the issue, TAX them too so we can save the planet.
Do you understand how the electricity is currently produced? I know concepts like that may seem like magic, but there is a network of powerstations called the National Grid, a network of coal and gas fired stations supplying that electricity.
So no. Electric cars are not a contributor directly, you know that, everybody knows that, so why bother coming out with the statement? You know perfectly well electricity can be generated using renewable sources and you also know you can't get taxed for having solar panels (up until recently the government would actually pay you to install them providing the surplus went to the National Grid) or most other renewables.
Artan: To be fair, that's not what Hawkwing said - he didn't say that they currently WERE blaming electric cars - he said if there were no petrol cars to blame, governments would probably try to come up with a reason to say electric cars were bad, so they'd have something to tax.
We point to show their are groups putting stuff in the air, and yet you call it BS. we point to show regular planes are still pumping higher levels of fumes into the air, but that's ok too. It's all BS.
That's right. Except I'm not calling it BS, I'm calling it bollocks. You seem to be mixing up pollution with this chemtrail TRIBBLE. You see if wither existed it could be tested for (by even you) in your backyard to little cost. High levels of particulates (such as those produced from diesel) are easy to test for. So too should be these 'chemtrails'. Try providing some empirical evidence not gleamed from a conspiracy circlejerk.
Artan: How would you do that, what kind of equipment/tests? I'm always interested in that kind of thing.
Seems to me that it would be difficult to make tests at home of something that's being emitted high in the sky. Though, thinking about it, most of these allegations (except the one about changing the weather) assume that the chemicals are eventually falling to earth, in which case you'd expect to be able to measure them at that point.
1st the tax part I wouldn't mind, IF there wasn't so make waste and fraud going on. They spend so much of the money we work hard to earn on themselves, or just waste the money of projects that just don't work. Sure some money is spend where it needs to good, but over all if there was a way to account for all the money, I am sure we wouldn't be getting taxed to death right now.
2nd The "getting your hands dirty" is a saying correct? Meaning get out and do it for yourself. I for one DON'T just sit back and let someone tell me, this is how it is, and don't dare question what I just said, cause what I said is based in FACTS. When all the time it's really based in option. When it comes to the worlds climate, and they say it's us doing it. I look outside the box at what happened before.
Why do you assume that's "outside the box"? What do you think climate scientists do? Their entire studies is based on using data from the past. Their entire field is about the development of climate over time! Why the heck would you think that they have somehow forgotten about past climate changes on Earth?
The whole concept of antrophogenic global warming is the result of looking at the data we have.
What you actually do is not think "outside the box". What do you do is simply argue from ignorance. You haven't looked at their data. You haven't looked at their models.
You don't consider the possibility that they might have actually evaluated the facts you bring up and have come to a conclusion that the facts do not support that this is a regular change in climate like it happened in the past, but that there is contribution by human changes in the environments.
I am reminded of a lecture on modern physics. The lecture was not based on the details of how physics came to the conclusions they have (because that's really nothnig you can put in a 2 hour lecture). At the end, someone asked a question about how all this couldn't be true because he read somewhere it wasn't.
The lecturer asked him if he had ever derived the formula for the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle. Because I picked physics as my minor field ob subject for computer sciences, I am somewhat familiar (from memory, I can't do it anymre) with it. It's something you actually do in undergraduate physics. It's not exactly trivial school math, but it is something you can do on a piece of paper.
If he had never done that, why is he busy reading up some minority source that says this isn't true? He lacks the knowledge to actually determine which side is true - the prevailing majority, or that minority. Maybe the minority is actually right, but even if it was, he couldn't determine it, and his opinion on their stance was meaningless.
If he wanted to contribute anything here, he would have no choice but to actually study the field itself.
Of course, that isn't always practical. We can't all be experts on quantum physics, climate research and cancer research.
But sometimes we just have to accept that we're ignorant. (It's kinda the fundamental basic of science. You know there is stuff you don't know. You want to figure it out ,but you start not knowing.) And that we can't have a meaningful impact in a field. And we might have to actually trust people that know more than us on a topic.
It's the same things on these forums. People ask for advice about ship builds. Because they don't know it all, but they know others know more. These people generally don't post: "I know that Beam Fire At Will is inferior to Beam Overload on an all beam build, so don't recommend it to me. Those people in the DPS channels are all wrong."
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Why do you assume that's "outside the box"? What do you think climate scientists do? Their entire studies is based on using data from the past. Their entire field is about the development of climate over time! Why the heck would you think that they have somehow forgotten about past climate changes on Earth?
The whole concept of antrophogenic global warming is the result of looking at the data we have.
What you actually do is not think "outside the box". What do you do is simply argue from ignorance. You haven't looked at their data. You haven't looked at their models.
You don't consider the possibility that they might have actually evaluated the facts you bring up and have come to a conclusion that the facts do not support that this is a regular change in climate like it happened in the past, but that there is contribution by human changes in the environments.
This sounds an awful lot like you're trying to characterize "deniers" as people who don't have data to back up their arguments.... that is not a wise position to take simply because it's an unprovable one.
Most of you might want to keep playing this game, and repeating the party lines, but this guy is tried of all this BS they can push on us. Yes, yes I know you have degrees in whatever science, so what. At the end of the day you still got to get your hands dirty to really know what's going on. You can learn that in any BOOK. Tell that to your FREE LOVE Flower Power 60s teachers.
Hawkwing, how have you found out what's really going on by "getting your hands dirty"? You've never explained what you meant by that.
[...]The "getting your hands dirty" is a saying correct? Meaning get out and do it for yourself. I for one DON'T just sit back and let someone tell me, "this is how it is, and don't dare question what I just said, cause what I said is based in FACTS". When all the time it's really based in opinion. When it comes to the worlds climate, and they say it's us doing it. I look outside the box at what happened before. Sure you can say look it's hotter now in one area vs what is was last year, but then the following year it's now cooler. Can you blame humans for this change in weather, or is it just a normal cycle of the weather? From what I have seen in my walk in life I have a great example. I spend two summers in one area. The 1st summer it was very wet, it rained every other day, it was so much water that the gnats were everywhere. The following year it was super hot, and it didn't rain much at all. Many couple times a months, but that was it. Oh and no Gnats that year. Now granted I only spent two years in that area, and it was only for the summer. To understand the weather patterns of that area, you would need live there. But that's an example of how the weather was in that one area.
Now were I live, my weather is so wild, I can't say we are the ones doing. BUT, that one year when Mt. St Helens blew it's top, the summer in my area stayed cool, maybe one of two days went into the 80s, but mainly it stayed down in the 70s. This is what I remember, I also remember at the time the weather people sucked, they would say today it's not going to rain, then it rained, and tomorrow it's going to rain and it was sunny. lol
Hawkwing, right, I see what you're saying now. But saying that your own observations of the weather don't show any clear trend is fair enough, but the problem with that is, they necessarily only cover a short period - a few decades, less if you're going from memory rather than having kept an actual diary of it. From one single year to another, there is no clear pattern because short-term fluctuations swamp everything. But if you average it over a longer time and draw the graph, which is what the climate scientists are doing, there is indeed a pattern, it's going up and it matches very neatly the graph of rising CO2 concentrations over time. (Had some very neat graphs of that in one of my first-year science textbooks, showing worldwide weather records over many years, but haven't got them handy right now. Can try and post them later if anyone likes.)
I admit I'm guilty of the same thing, with my comments about the weather in the North of England. In my defence, that is a long-term observation in a way. In 2005, the city of Carlisle was flooded, along with large parts of the rest of Cumberland, this was the first time there had been serious floods in Carlisle since 1968 (according to BBC News at the time - I've just checked that). In 2012 the town of Hebden Bridge near where I live, and most of the surrounding area, was flooded out, something I'd never heard of happening before in my lifetime.
This winter, both of them were flooded all over again even worse. This is getting silly.
As for weather forecasts, same thing. There are patterns in the weather in the long term (decades) and in the medium term (seasons); there are basically no patterns in the short term, all they can do is locate existing rainstorms and try and predict where they'll go next from their current course and what winds they're going to meet on the way. Which, as we all know, is NOT an exact science. But that actually has very little in common with predicting what the average temperatures over a year or a decade are going to do, which is about measuring trends over a long period and working out how they relate to various conditions like solar output and CO2 or methane levels - there, since you're talking about a long period, what particular weather systems will blow in from where on any particular day is irrelevant since it'll average out.
There are also complications like having to include the temperature of the open sea in your global total; you can't observe that from year to year for yourself, unless you're a sailor. That's one that came up recently - apparently, someone triumphantly claimed that the temperature wasn't rising as much as the established models predicted after all, but it was shown that when you took the temperature of the sea into account, the predicted amount of extra heat was there right enough and, when the sea couldn't absorb any more, would eventually come back to the atmosphere.
I see your point about Mount St Helens (we did that in that first-year science course - learnt how to quantify atmospheric aerosols in units of so many "Pinatubos", another volcano - fun stuff), if you mean what I think you mean - that spraying stuff into the atmosphere could have a big effect on the climate. But that is a HUGE amount of ash particles - the ash column from Mount St Helens was 12 miles high, though admittedly a lot of that just fell back onto Mount St Helens. How many aeroplanes would it take, flying for how many years, to do something like that artificially? Also, why?
Sounds about as accurate as those people who say the Sandy hook school and Virginia church shootings didn't happen and we're actually staged by anti gun groups, or the people who say Obama is not American
Which? What I'm saying or what Hawkwing was saying?
By the way, I've completely jumbled up the quote markings and it WILL NOT let me edit it again, however long I wait between attempts, so I'm just going to post it again properly. Here's what I was TRYING to post.
True, but MustrumRidcully only said "you", i.e. presumably Hawkwing43, not climate change deniers in general, and it IS true of Hawkwing43's argument.
Most of you might want to keep playing this game, and repeating the party lines, but this guy is tried of all this BS they can push on us. Yes, yes I know you have degrees in whatever science, so what. At the end of the day you still got to get your hands dirty to really know what's going on. You can learn that in any BOOK. Tell that to your FREE LOVE Flower Power 60s teachers.
Hawkwing, how have you found out what's really going on by "getting your hands dirty"? You've never explained what you meant by that.
[...]The "getting your hands dirty" is a saying correct? Meaning get out and do it for yourself. I for one DON'T just sit back and let someone tell me, "this is how it is, and don't dare question what I just said, cause what I said is based in FACTS". When all the time it's really based in opinion. When it comes to the worlds climate, and they say it's us doing it. I look outside the box at what happened before. Sure you can say look it's hotter now in one area vs what is was last year, but then the following year it's now cooler. Can you blame humans for this change in weather, or is it just a normal cycle of the weather? From what I have seen in my walk in life I have a great example. I spend two summers in one area. The 1st summer it was very wet, it rained every other day, it was so much water that the gnats were everywhere. The following year it was super hot, and it didn't rain much at all. Many couple times a months, but that was it. Oh and no Gnats that year. Now granted I only spent two years in that area, and it was only for the summer. To understand the weather patterns of that area, you would need live there. But that's an example of how the weather was in that one area.
Now were I live, my weather is so wild, I can't say we are the ones doing. BUT, that one year when Mt. St Helens blew it's top, the summer in my area stayed cool, maybe one of two days went into the 80s, but mainly it stayed down in the 70s. This is what I remember, I also remember at the time the weather people sucked, they would say today it's not going to rain, then it rained, and tomorrow it's going to rain and it was sunny. lol
Hawkwing, right, I see what you're saying now. But saying that your own observations of the weather don't show any clear trend is fair enough, but the problem with that is, they necessarily only cover a short period - a few decades, less if you're going from memory rather than having kept an actual diary of it. From one single year to another, there is no clear pattern because short-term fluctuations swamp everything. But if you average it over a longer time and draw the graph, which is what the climate scientists are doing, there is indeed a pattern, it's going up and it matches very neatly the graph of rising CO2 concentrations over time. (Had some very neat graphs of that in one of my first-year science textbooks, showing worldwide weather records over many years, but haven't got them handy right now. Can try and post them later if anyone likes.)
I admit I'm guilty of the same thing, with my comments about the weather in the North of England. In my defence, that is a long-term observation in a way. In 2005, the city of Carlisle was flooded, along with large parts of the rest of Cumberland, this was the first time there had been serious floods in Carlisle since 1968 (according to BBC News at the time - I've just checked that). In 2012 the town of Hebden Bridge near where I live, and most of the surrounding area, was flooded out, something I'd never heard of happening before in my lifetime.
This winter, both of them were flooded all over again even worse. This is getting silly.
As for weather forecasts, same thing. There are patterns in the weather in the long term (decades) and in the medium term (seasons); there are basically no patterns in the short term, all they can do is locate existing rainstorms and try and predict where they'll go next from their current course and what winds they're going to meet on the way. Which, as we all know, is NOT an exact science. But that actually has very little in common with predicting what the average temperatures over a year or a decade are going to do, which is about measuring trends over a long period and working out how they relate to various conditions like solar output and CO2 or methane levels - there, since you're talking about a long period, what particular weather systems will blow in from where on any particular day is irrelevant since it'll average out.
There are also complications like having to include the temperature of the open sea in your global total; you can't observe that from year to year for yourself, unless you're a sailor. That's one that came up recently - apparently, someone triumphantly claimed that the temperature wasn't rising as much as the established models predicted after all, but it was shown that when you took the temperature of the sea into account, the predicted amount of extra heat was there right enough and, when the sea couldn't absorb any more, would eventually come back to the atmosphere.
I see your point about Mount St Helens (we did that in that first-year science course - learnt how to quantify atmospheric aerosols in units of so many "Pinatubos", another volcano - fun stuff), if you mean what I think you mean - that spraying stuff into the atmosphere could have a big effect on the climate. But that is a HUGE amount of ash particles - the ash column from Mount St Helens was 12 miles high, though admittedly a lot of that just fell back onto Mount St Helens. How many aeroplanes would it take, flying for how many years, to do something like that artificially? Also, why?
Hmm... yeah, there's a lot of stuff to consider when trying to determine why the climate changes. Like solar cycles, apparently the sun is warmer than it was 100 years ago. Just a tiny bit, but just enough to notice.
Sounds about as accurate as those people who say the Sandy hook school and Virginia church shootings didn't happen and we're actually staged by anti gun groups, or the people who say Obama is not American
Is he a US citizen? yes. was he born on US soil? not sure. Does he have SOLE citizenship in the US? probably not.
Is he a US citizen? yes. was he born on US soil? not sure. Does he have SOLE citizenship in the US? probably not.
The answer to all your questions is yes. And I'm not even American.
EDIT: This is actually a good example what's wrong with argumenting like the OP did. To answer the question wether or not Obama is a US citizen you don't require magic. All the info you need is there, albeit this time it's easier to find than to find primary sources on climate research. But instead of using these means to get a picture we just start to wildly assume something which is not based on facts but at best on some gut feeling and at worst on ignorance and maybe prejudice.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Comments
So, a couple of key differences between your comparisons:
1) the Operations Northwoods plans involved creating false evidence. So if someone tried to expose it, the general public and the media would simply point to the false evidence and call the person a crazy conspiracy theorist.
2) Unlike Watergate or Snowden, the Northwoords plans involved actual murder. If they were willing to murder people as part of the plan itself, they definitely would have been willing to murder people who would expose the plans, or their families.
So yes, there are people who expose a lot of things. But most of those plans don't involve a clear willingness to kill people, and I would argue that knowing your family might die is a much stronger motivation to keep quiet than simply having to live in exile like Snowden.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Have a nice life, then.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
As for the video clip itself, I agree with Jonsills - there are no relevant "documents" shown or named in it at all; all it shows directly is some pages of logs from some drone showing nothing more alarming than position, altitude and air pressure readings, and the title of a study, which is "Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise Emissions 2014". The first thing that that suggests is definitely not a chemtrail project! (Unless there's something more impressive after 1:10 - it stopped working at that point.)
The hackers are making a lot of claims about what they've found in the rest of the data, and threatening to release all the documents themselves if NASA don't release them "within the month". Well, if they do that, and there's something there that looks more relevant than "Alternative Fuels...", then I'll take them seriously; meanwhile, I'll reserve judgment until then!
"They claim that they were discovered and lost access to the NASA servers after attempting to take control of a Global Hawk drone and crash it into the Pacific Ocean..." The hackers sound a bit daft. Seems surprising that they could have got as far as they claim; but we know that one chronically stoned computer technician once TRIBBLE the Pentagon, for months on end. So it's possible - it's not how clever the hackers are that matters, it's how gormless the NASA staff are!
Climatology is an actual science, you know. You can study it. (So is chemistry, as long as we're more or less still on the "chemtrail" subject.) And as long as you proclaim your unwillingness to learn about the science, we can assign as much significance to your ranting as we would do, say, someone pronouncing the superiority of homeopathy over medical science.
Planes contribute, as cars and coal plants or ships do. But there is a lot more car traffic in the world than there is plane traffic, and consequently, cars burn a lot more gas and produce a lot more CO2 then planes do.
My character Tsin'xing
Oh course I know that. But before we start letting political know it all people tell us what is right and wrong, why not get the FACTS right, before we get taxed to dead to fix the WRONG problems.
I remember one of these guys named Al Gore, remember him and his FACTS on the topic.
Then you have the USA giving out 2.5 billion dollars in climate science money, and you can only get it IF you do studies in the field. And I am very sure your finding better agree with the talking points, or else YOU DON'T GET ANY NEW MONEY.
Top 10 FAILED Global Warming Predictions
Need we say more on this topic?
Well if your going to use that example, how about the case that the area was once a huge jungle? But of course that was many many years ago.
It's the ozone thing all over again, except this time we can't seem to get people to understand that a few simple changes that won't directly affect their own lifestyles can help. At least we managed to get that problem under control before ignorance became so very aggressive...
Anyways, enjoy having the thread to yourself, Hawk - well, you and any other conspiracy fans who are willing to put up with your continued denigration of facts in favor of Fox-News-inspired claptrap about "chemtrails" somehow changing the planetary climate all on their own.
It goes both ways my friend. I just point out it's not all facts, you still don't have everyone on the same page with this topic. And still do you really think a carbon tax will save this planet? Just asking.
As for me, I don't see any conspiracy other than an annoying tendency to treat science as a political football, that does make me suspicious that at times the scientific method is not being followed to anywhere near the rigor it should in this area. It's not malice or conspiracy...it's just garden variety groupthink and incompetence. Now you might think it's funny that I say that yet also recycle and drive a hybrid. Thing is, I can look around me and see enough common sense reasons to try to treat the environment nicely. Regardless of what I think about climate change I CAN see a clear correlation between smog and things like asthma, and common sense tells me that's not good in the lungs of people and animals. And similarly, common sense tells me that if a resource is limited, blowing through it like it's no big deal is stupid and if I can cut my usage down, then I should. I don't need or care about anything a bunch of talking heads in DC say, to look around me and make my choice.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Obviously as the US is the only country in the world it is understandable you can't collect data from outside the US. Hell it's not even as though you can do the bleeding research yourself. But, hey, why bother when you can watch youtube videos of a bunch of nutters sticking their fingers in their ears shouting 'lalalala'.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Again that is to show this isn't a cut and dry issue that was settled. But if you want to just give the government more of your hard eared money, but all means go ahead to cut them a bigger check. At the end of the day this whole issue is over money, and how much more they can bleed out of the people's pockets. We point to show their are groups putting stuff in the air, and yet you call it BS. we point to show regular planes are still pumping higher levels of fumes into the air, but that's ok too. It's all BS. Hell if you had zero carbon fuel anything, and we still had this issue of climate change as it's called. I am sure someone would say look the electric cars are the issue, TAX them too so we can save the planet. Oh that's right they keep floating a mileage tax, so they can have that ready too, if more people stop using gas cars. Most of you might want to keep playing this game, and repeating the party lines, but this guy is tried of all this BS they can push on us. Yes, yes I know you have degrees in whatever science, so what. At the end of the day you still got to get your hands dirty to really know what's going on. You can learn that in any BOOK. Tell that to your FREE LOVE Flower Power 60s teachers.
No thanks. A lack of overwhelming privatisation and a socialist government means my tax is (by large) spent efficiently. I'm quite happy in my current bracket, though we could do with lower energy costs.
What issue? The change in the Earth's climate? So you would suggest what? Keep on using it up at out current rate?
That's right. Except I'm not calling it BS, I'm calling it bollocks. You seem to be mixing up pollution with this chemtrail TRIBBLE. You see if wither existed it could be tested for (by even you) in your backyard to little cost. High levels of particulates (such as those produced from diesel) are easy to test for. So too should be these 'chemtrails'. Try providing some empirical evidence not gleamed from a conspiracy circlejerk.
Do you understand how the electricity is currently produced? I know concepts like that may seem like magic, but there is a network of powerstations called the National Grid, a network of coal and gas fired stations supplying that electricity.
So no. Electric cars are not a contributor directly, you know that, everybody knows that, so why bother coming out with the statement? You know perfectly well electricity can be generated using renewable sources and you also know you can't get taxed for having solar panels (up until recently the government would actually pay you to install them providing the surplus went to the National Grid) or most other renewables.
Sucks to be an American then I guess.
Trying to push what on you? A education?
How do you mean get your hands dirty? You mean by working in the environmental health sector? Oh, I kinda do. Also, what 'FREE LOVE Flower Power 60s teachers'? I was taught by a bunch of people in their 30s and 40s. It's like you're just guessing now. It's not part of alternative culture to understand the concept of limited resources.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The climate has been changing throughout all of recorded history. It was never stable. Therefore it takes identifying a cause of climate change to determine whether a specific example of climate change is or isn't natural.
My character Tsin'xing
Then you have the external forces at work too. How much of what is coming from space effects us down here over time? This is still more examples I keep pointing too, you can't say it's happening due to one or two things. You like at the whole picture, and use the facts to back your findings. Not plug in numbers in a computer model, and hope you get what you want it to be. Look to history, and learn from the past, it will show what the future brings.
Not all teachers are bad, but you still have a few rotten apples in the bunch.
Actually, I hear a lot of scientists (on a mailing list I belong to, http://www.sgr.org.uk ) complaining that, at least in America, it's the scientists who say climate change ISN'T caused by burning fossil fuels who get money thrown at them however rubbish their science is, by all the bogus "scientific foundations" and "charitable foundations" that are in fact set up and funded by oil companies.
As for taxes, it's not all on one side. I don't know if you're aware that HUGE amounts of taxpayers' money are spent on subsidising the fossil fuel industry. (At least, that's true here in the UK. The USA is slightly better, though it still amounts to billions, and to their credit the US government are at least making somewhat serious-looking plans to phase it out, which our government aren't. see http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/uk-breaks-pledge-to-become-only-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies ) Less of that malarkey, for a start, would mean less taxes for us or else being able to spend them on something better like our health services.
Hawkwing, how have you found out what's really going on by "getting your hands dirty"? You've never explained what you meant by that.
Artan: To be fair, that's not what Hawkwing said - he didn't say that they currently WERE blaming electric cars - he said if there were no petrol cars to blame, governments would probably try to come up with a reason to say electric cars were bad, so they'd have something to tax.
Artan: How would you do that, what kind of equipment/tests? I'm always interested in that kind of thing.
Seems to me that it would be difficult to make tests at home of something that's being emitted high in the sky. Though, thinking about it, most of these allegations (except the one about changing the weather) assume that the chemicals are eventually falling to earth, in which case you'd expect to be able to measure them at that point.
My character Tsin'xing
1st the tax part I wouldn't mind, IF there wasn't so make waste and fraud going on. They spend so much of the money we work hard to earn on themselves, or just waste the money of projects that just don't work. Sure some money is spend where it needs to good, but over all if there was a way to account for all the money, I am sure we wouldn't be getting taxed to death right now.
2nd The "getting your hands dirty" is a saying correct? Meaning get out and do it for yourself. I for one DON'T just sit back and let someone tell me, this is how it is, and don't dare question what I just said, cause what I said is based in FACTS. When all the time it's really based in option. When it comes to the worlds climate, and they say it's us doing it. I look outside the box at what happened before. Sure you can say look it's hotter now in one area vs what is was last year, but then the following year it's now cooler. Can you blame humans for this change in weather, or is it just a normal cycle of the weather? From what I have seen in my walk in life I have a great example. I spend two summers in one area. The 1st summer it was very wet, it rained every other day, it was so much water that the gnats were everywhere. The following year it was super hot, and it didn't rain much at all. Many couple times a months, but that was it. Oh and no Gnats that year. Now granted I only spent two years in that area, and it was only for the summer. To understand the weather patterns of that area, you would need live there. But that's an example of how the weather was in that one area. Now were I live, my weather is so wild, I can't say we are the ones doing. BUT, that one year when Mt. St Helens blew it's top, the summer in my area stayed cool, maybe one of two days went into the 80s, but mainly it stayed down in the 70s. This is what I remember, I also remember at the time the weather people sucked, they would say today it's not going to rain, then it rained, and tomorrow it's going to rain and it was sunny. lol
Fear is used by everyone who wants to control you. Gets me mad to know how much is used against us.
Why do you assume that's "outside the box"? What do you think climate scientists do? Their entire studies is based on using data from the past. Their entire field is about the development of climate over time! Why the heck would you think that they have somehow forgotten about past climate changes on Earth?
The whole concept of antrophogenic global warming is the result of looking at the data we have.
What you actually do is not think "outside the box". What do you do is simply argue from ignorance. You haven't looked at their data. You haven't looked at their models.
You don't consider the possibility that they might have actually evaluated the facts you bring up and have come to a conclusion that the facts do not support that this is a regular change in climate like it happened in the past, but that there is contribution by human changes in the environments.
I am reminded of a lecture on modern physics. The lecture was not based on the details of how physics came to the conclusions they have (because that's really nothnig you can put in a 2 hour lecture). At the end, someone asked a question about how all this couldn't be true because he read somewhere it wasn't.
The lecturer asked him if he had ever derived the formula for the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle. Because I picked physics as my minor field ob subject for computer sciences, I am somewhat familiar (from memory, I can't do it anymre) with it. It's something you actually do in undergraduate physics. It's not exactly trivial school math, but it is something you can do on a piece of paper.
If he had never done that, why is he busy reading up some minority source that says this isn't true? He lacks the knowledge to actually determine which side is true - the prevailing majority, or that minority. Maybe the minority is actually right, but even if it was, he couldn't determine it, and his opinion on their stance was meaningless.
If he wanted to contribute anything here, he would have no choice but to actually study the field itself.
Of course, that isn't always practical. We can't all be experts on quantum physics, climate research and cancer research.
But sometimes we just have to accept that we're ignorant. (It's kinda the fundamental basic of science. You know there is stuff you don't know. You want to figure it out ,but you start not knowing.) And that we can't have a meaningful impact in a field. And we might have to actually trust people that know more than us on a topic.
It's the same things on these forums. People ask for advice about ship builds. Because they don't know it all, but they know others know more. These people generally don't post: "I know that Beam Fire At Will is inferior to Beam Overload on an all beam build, so don't recommend it to me. Those people in the DPS channels are all wrong."
My character Tsin'xing
By the way, I've completely jumbled up the quote markings and it WILL NOT let me edit it again, however long I wait between attempts, so I'm just going to post it again properly. Here's what I was TRYING to post.
True, but MustrumRidcully only said "you", i.e. presumably Hawkwing43, not climate change deniers in general, and it IS true of Hawkwing43's argument.
Hawkwing, right, I see what you're saying now. But saying that your own observations of the weather don't show any clear trend is fair enough, but the problem with that is, they necessarily only cover a short period - a few decades, less if you're going from memory rather than having kept an actual diary of it. From one single year to another, there is no clear pattern because short-term fluctuations swamp everything. But if you average it over a longer time and draw the graph, which is what the climate scientists are doing, there is indeed a pattern, it's going up and it matches very neatly the graph of rising CO2 concentrations over time. (Had some very neat graphs of that in one of my first-year science textbooks, showing worldwide weather records over many years, but haven't got them handy right now. Can try and post them later if anyone likes.)
I admit I'm guilty of the same thing, with my comments about the weather in the North of England. In my defence, that is a long-term observation in a way. In 2005, the city of Carlisle was flooded, along with large parts of the rest of Cumberland, this was the first time there had been serious floods in Carlisle since 1968 (according to BBC News at the time - I've just checked that). In 2012 the town of Hebden Bridge near where I live, and most of the surrounding area, was flooded out, something I'd never heard of happening before in my lifetime.
This winter, both of them were flooded all over again even worse. This is getting silly.
As for weather forecasts, same thing. There are patterns in the weather in the long term (decades) and in the medium term (seasons); there are basically no patterns in the short term, all they can do is locate existing rainstorms and try and predict where they'll go next from their current course and what winds they're going to meet on the way. Which, as we all know, is NOT an exact science. But that actually has very little in common with predicting what the average temperatures over a year or a decade are going to do, which is about measuring trends over a long period and working out how they relate to various conditions like solar output and CO2 or methane levels - there, since you're talking about a long period, what particular weather systems will blow in from where on any particular day is irrelevant since it'll average out.
There are also complications like having to include the temperature of the open sea in your global total; you can't observe that from year to year for yourself, unless you're a sailor. That's one that came up recently - apparently, someone triumphantly claimed that the temperature wasn't rising as much as the established models predicted after all, but it was shown that when you took the temperature of the sea into account, the predicted amount of extra heat was there right enough and, when the sea couldn't absorb any more, would eventually come back to the atmosphere.
I see your point about Mount St Helens (we did that in that first-year science course - learnt how to quantify atmospheric aerosols in units of so many "Pinatubos", another volcano - fun stuff), if you mean what I think you mean - that spraying stuff into the atmosphere could have a big effect on the climate. But that is a HUGE amount of ash particles - the ash column from Mount St Helens was 12 miles high, though admittedly a lot of that just fell back onto Mount St Helens. How many aeroplanes would it take, flying for how many years, to do something like that artificially? Also, why?
My character Tsin'xing
The answer to all your questions is yes. And I'm not even American.
EDIT: This is actually a good example what's wrong with argumenting like the OP did. To answer the question wether or not Obama is a US citizen you don't require magic. All the info you need is there, albeit this time it's easier to find than to find primary sources on climate research. But instead of using these means to get a picture we just start to wildly assume something which is not based on facts but at best on some gut feeling and at worst on ignorance and maybe prejudice.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!