AuthorTopic: Guy McPherson is on to something.  (Read 30329 times)

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2015, 12:35:59 PM »
I do think my understanding of feedback loops is superior to his.  Pardon my arrogance but his is not an engineering background. 

The guy has a career as an academic. He knows as much about engineering principles as Ehrlich did about resource depletion, and can't be expected to incorporate what he doesn't know any better than Ehrlich did.

It is actually quite a common effect, and can be seen within any multidisciplinary group. Quite educational watching it in action as a matter of fact. Engineers will give you a calculation precise to three decimals and ignore the uncertainty introducing 3 orders of magnitude into the final result. Hysterical.
Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2015, 02:08:18 PM »
I do think my understanding of feedback loops is superior to his.  Pardon my arrogance but his is not an engineering background. 

The guy has a career as an academic. He knows as much about engineering principles as Ehrlich did about resource depletion, and can't be expected to incorporate what he doesn't know any better than Ehrlich did.

It is actually quite a common effect, and can be seen within any multidisciplinary group. Quite educational watching it in action as a matter of fact. Engineers will give you a calculation precise to three decimals and ignore the uncertainty introducing 3 orders of magnitude into the final result. Hysterical.

Notice how MKing IGNORES the engineering background and credentials, FAR above ANYTHING MKing COULD EVER HOPE TO ACHIEVE, of Kevin Anderson, who states the reality of our existential threat as unambiguously as McPherson.

You are wasting your time feeding the MKing, Biosphere math challenged, fossil fueler TROLL.  :emthdown:

Palloy has some reality perception difficulties too.

At the risk of being called a shill for the fossil fuel industry by AG, again, I should just like to point out that the pH of the oceans varies between 8.1 and 8.4, and that so far climate change hasn't altered that by 0.1 anywhere at all.  It would happen in time of course, IF we continued to burn fossil fuels at the same, or increasing rates.  But if you believe in Peak Fossils then that won't happen - not because THEY wouldn't want to, but because they won't be able to make money out of it.  That's when they will stop extracting fossil fuels, and industrial civilisation will collapse.

Temperatures will continue to rise maybe until 2045, and ocean acidification will continue, but industrialised fishing will be over almost instantly, and fish stocks will replenish quickly.  The mix of species will be different, no doubt, but they have always been different, and nobody is really aware of what the mix is anyway.

So don't worry, just pray the collapse happens soon.

Sigh, you mathematicians don't do much biosphere math, do you? What YOU call "insignificant" pH (you know, the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration) differences have VERY significant (as in homeostatic band required) effects on living systems (you know, the stuff we eat!).

Homeostasis REQUIRES that strict pH (and temperature and pressure and dissolved CO2 and dissolved O2, etc.) bands be adhered to or the organism dies. The reason it dies is because thousands to millions of biochemical reactions per second, vital to living processes, will not take place outside those homeostatic bands.

For mathematicians, the numbers are "significant" if they are, say, 2% or more and INSIGNIFICANT when they vary less than that.

For biologists, the numbers are homeostatic band life or death SIGNIFICANT when they vary by 0.01 % - often even less!).

This is so because the enzymes (catalysts made by living systems to lower the energy of activation for chemical reactions so the organism does not overheat and die from chemical reaction waste heat inefficiencies) will NOT take place when the pH (in combination with the other factors I mentioned) varies by a very small percentage. And all these bands vary in different parts of the human body. The pH band your bloodstream can handle is far less than the one the water in your tissues can handle.

There is a LOT MORE to this.

For example, I'm sure you would agree that being drunk is hazardous to your health because it slows your reflexes, dehydrates you, stresses your kidneys and liver and blinds you to reality because the system thinks it is pigging out on cheap energy - sends your brain a signal that everything is amazingly great (that's called being high).

The change in concentration of alcohol in the blood required to effect all these deleterious changes (that the organism itself perceives INCORRECTLY  as  "good" because it FEELS good") is, from your point of view, tiny.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relative_risk_of_an_accident_based_on_blood_alcohol_levels_(linear_scale).jpg

Biosphere math is DIFFERENT from the math applied to non-living matter, Palloy. Stop trying to apply your math to living systems. It is tantamount to peddling rose colored glasses about the severity of our environmental plight.   

Here's one more example of how a pollutant in our atmosphere that kills life is actually made by living systems to preserve life. It's all in the percentages, Palloy. It's all in where the polluting gas is and how much of it there is. The life or death differences in percentage are FAR LESS than 0.01%.

The gas I refer to is Nitric Oxide (NO).

Environmental effects

Nitric oxide in the air may convert to nitric acid, which has been implicated in acid rain. However, it is an important source of nutrition for plant life in the form of nitrates. Furthermore, both NO and NO2 participate in ozone layer depletion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitric_oxide


Humans make Nitric oxide in their noses to kill bacteria before it gets to their lungs. This is why breathing through your nose is a good idea.  ;D

But the percentage is so tiny that a fellow like you would claim it was "insignificant" if it was no longer there (which would guarantee bacterial attacks on the lung tissue  :P).

On the other hand, if we breath too much  Nitric oxide because it's in the atmosphere as a pollutant, it can destroy tissue. And before it does that, it will vasodilate the begeezes out of your blood vessels, depleting your ability to get oxygen to your brain and everywhere else in your body. Too much, by a very small percentage, will kill you.

This is what homeostasis is ALL ABOUT. This is why Lovelock used the homeostatic analogy in his Gaia hypothesis. He understood the incredibly small percentage of variation that our biosphere REQUIRES to be viable. The fact that most people are not aware of this is used by the deluded wishful thinkers to claim the gravity of our situation can be solved by killing off most of the human population. NEVER MIND that the top 20% will still be there doing 80% of the damage.


The collapse of the human population will not allow the fish populations to rebound simply because EATING the fish, though a contributing factor, is not the main reason they are headed for extinction.

Your post is biosphere reality challenged. It's time for you to take of the "culling the population will solve all our problems" rose colored glasses.

 



Palloy said,
Quote
At the risk of being called a shill for the fossil fuel industry by AG, again, I should just like to point out that the pH of the oceans varies between 8.1 and 8.4, and that so far climate change hasn't altered that by 0.1 anywhere at all.

How can Palloy be right about percentages and WRONG about the deleterious impact on marine species at the same time?  :icon_scratch:  First of all, he refused to state the TREND when he said that  "pH of the oceans varies between 8.1 and 8.4". This is double talk for, "it's no big deal". To cover his illogical ass he then says that "eventually" it's gonna happen. LOL! A brain dead person knows that! His entire post lowballs the  existential threat for marine species due to CO2 caused ocean acidification. This is what irresponsible defenders of the polluting energy status quo DO.   


Quote

OA Observations and Data

Follow the links below to access ocean acidification data for each of our observation programs

The field of carbon cycle science depends on well-designed, well-executed, and carefully maintained observations.  The PMEL carbon group primarily focuses on large scale observations of ocean interior carbon through hydrographic cruises and surface ocean carbon dynamics through measurements made on volunteer observing ships, buoys, and other autonomous systems. We work in both the open ocean and in coastal environments. We maintain long-term time series observations as well as conducting short term process studies or exploratory studies.  Since ocean acidification emerged as an important scientific issue, we have been augmenting and expanding our observational capacity by adding pH and other biogeochemical measurements to the platforms listed below.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/OA+Observations+and+Data



« Last Edit: September 20, 2015, 03:42:08 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2015, 02:25:08 PM »
RE's plan might just work to prevent human extinction.  :icon_sunny:  But, the survivors will not come out of it unscathed.

SustainableBusiness.com Newswire

09/20/2015 10:19 AM ET   
Agratech Farms - Water Conservation With Hydroponic Farming
 


The world at large is running low in essential resources and since water is one of them, saving it is a primary issue that has become quite a challenge nowadays. 

September 4th, 2015 - As one of the largest commercial hydroponic operators, Agratech Farms aims to become the largest in the world.

Recently it has begun reviewing ways to conserve water through hydroponic farming. This method of farming is purely dependent on water laded with nutrients and relative traditional farming methods and it already consumes 90% less water.  Agratech intends to further reduce the consumption of water in its hydroponic farming facilities.

The world at large is running low in essential resources; with water being one of them, saving it has become a challenge globally. In order to contribute to this cause, Agratech Farms constantly analyzes its existing technologies to find a way to better manage the consumption of water. Today 70% of the world's water is used in traditional agriculture.

The fundamental use of water in growing plants hydroponically, also uses coconut shell fibers and Styrofoam to hold the plants at the correct angle. Under which, the roots float in the water that quenches both their thirst and provides the essential nutrients.

A spokesperson from Agratech says, "If managed more efficiently, we can actually conserve 90% water in hydroponics farming. We intend to play our part in the conservation of water, as that is the essence of this method of farming. Not to mention Agratech's underlying goal is to contribute in every way we can to the environment."

"We also grow high-quality hydroponic produce 'Daily Fresh'. Using the latest water saving and hydroponic techniques we have developed sustainable hydroponic farms that promote our "green" agriculture initiative."

With Agratech's vision to develop and educate the next generation with relevant hydroponic farming and agricultural knowledge, Head Quartered in Dubai UAE; Agratech have also introduced hydroponic investments for private, commercial and industry buyers and also established firm bases of operation in Hong Kong, the Capital of Romania, Madrid in Spain, and now Lisbon in Portugal.

The spokesperson continued,
Quote
"Many of the mentioned countries lack arable land and climactic requirements needed for the mass production of food. Agratech's Vision is to provide self sufficiency in agriculture to these regions all the while obtaining an even higher conservation rate of water."

Our technology allows us to grow 365 days a year in any climate using state of the art technology that regulates the climate inside our closed High Tech greenhouse, a series of sensors, coolers and heaters allows uniformed production all year round. 


About Agratech

Agratech aims to be one of the largest operators of hydroponic farming facilities in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Europe from their strategic base in the United Arab Emirates.

It strives to improve the world's food security imbalances with technologically advanced farming techniques coupled with clean and ethical farming practices that produce fresh, healthy fruit and vegetables.

Equipped with the vision to educate, teach and develop the next generation throughout the globe with relevant farming and agricultural knowledge, they also continue their local-to-local philosophy to ensure job creation and economic safety throughout the region.

Dedicated to balance being a successful business as well as a socially responsible one, they aim to construct over 100 hectares of hydroponic farm land by 2020, but also to donate produce to the United Nations and World Health Organization.


For more information please contact:

Bogdan Ureche Development Manager
 Agratech Farms
 +97143132831
media@agratechfarms.com
http://agratechfarms.com/

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.viewpressrelease/id/404

Agelbert NOTE: Why do I think this really will help  (i. e. a small portion of) humanity in  a massively polluted, CO2 warmed world on a N.T.H.E. trajectory?  ???

Because of THIS:
Quote
"Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses." -- Doug Bostrom
http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg3825/#msg3825


Greenhouses on the North Slope. Due to the increased CO2 concentration and greening towards the poles, these technofixes (for the privileged few) will help deep pocketed Alaskans hold out in a world of multiple species extinctions. Who knows? They MIGHT even avoid N.T.H.E.!


See below: Future Success Story of Remnant, though somewhat brain damaged from pollution caused DNA degradation, Homo saps in Alaska: 







Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2015, 02:49:26 PM »
Your alcohol analogy might be just the key to get through to the sceptics. The good time now and hangover later just last a lot longer.
ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2015, 03:33:28 PM »
Your alcohol analogy might be just the key to get through to the sceptics. The good time now and hangover later just last a lot longer.

Agreed. But, as you have correctly pointed out in past posts, the "skeptics" with an agenda will remain "unconvinced", so to speak.  :evil4:

We all agree that MKing, Palloy, Snowleapard, Alan, Ashvin, etc, et al are not stupid. So, low IQ is no excuse for being biosphere math challenged.

We all agree that they support incremental measures, rather than drastic ones, to address the environmental problems.

We all agree that they,  even if they aren't biologists or medical doctors, can read scientific journals and watch videos by credentialed climate scientists. 

So, the excuse, often repeated by some of the above luminaries, that "they don't know that much about biology or climate science" does not hold water.

Having an agenda to downplay the existential threat does (see shoe sizes     ).

To anyone I failed to mention in the list of irresponsible and criminally negligent homo saps that downplay the existential threat to humanity of CO2 Pollution:

UB, I recommend you save his image. It might come in handy when you are debating prevaricating fucks.  ;D





« Last Edit: September 20, 2015, 03:49:47 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2015, 04:00:12 PM »
Notice how MKing IGNORES the engineering background and credentials, FAR above ANYTHING MKing COULD EVER HOPE TO ACHIEVE, of Kevin Anderson, who states the reality of our existential threat as unambiguously as McPherson.

I wasn't responding to the value of his credentials or conclusions. I was commenting on something else related to those of a particular expertise applying it, while not recognizing the value of what they don't know, and mentioning that I have seen this in science circles more times than you have years in your life.

People have been claiming the species is going to die through one mechanism or another since long before you were born Anthony, I understand maybe you have a favorite, good for you.


Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2015, 05:30:44 PM »
I wish you well. The Tardigrades can wait. They are patient.

We'll leave the Earth to the Tardigrades in due time.  They can take a full on asteroid impact, we cannot.

Unless said asteroid hits in the next 30 years, Guy McPherson is wrong.

RE

I agree that we will certainly not be extinct in 30 years. But Guy McPherson is guilty of being early, not alarmist or hyperbolic.

Kevin Anderson. Richard Somerville and David Wasdell, to name just three serious scientists directly involved with climate science, agree we face an existential threat. The issue is not WHETHER we face an existential threat. The issue is HOW SOON within a few decades or less the door is closing to ameliorate or prevent that threat.
 
The deluded flat refuse to accept that their IS an existential threat, never mind IF the threat is near term.

I think you agree with that, do you not?

I think Guy McPherson understands the politics of the social system killing us quite well. How has Hansen done with his low key stuff? Not too well. And Hansen wrote a book of "fiction" where he clearly lays out an extinction scenario for humans WITHIN a century! But he won't go public with that in his peer reviewed stuff, NOT because he has no scientifically valid grounds (as idiot fossil fuelers might claim), but because he knows how it "works" in politics. He is, in a cowardly fashion, bowing to politically expedient incremental measure demands in the face of an existential threat. 

McPherson understands that, unless the public accepts the FACT that we do face an existential threat WITHIN a generation (regardless of whether that estimate is EARLY by two or three decades), our extinction is baked in. If he did not CARE about the our survival, he would not be shouting the warning from the rooftops!

As Kevin Anderson said, it is imperative to get people to understand the SCALE of the action that is needed. The people that claim McPherson is peddling futility are wrong.

 

It will be TOO LATE if we don't start getting serious about N.T.H.E. in 2030. MAYBE it's not too late now. But  Kevin Anderson. Richard Somerville and David Wasdell, etc. et al are making a case for DRASTIC and URGENT action. They clearly state that incremental measures will NOT WORK to prevent the extinction of most, and possibly all of the human species.

RE, this is not about Guy McPherson. He is not alone in his warning, even if he is more strident than other scientists out there.
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32521
    • View Profile
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2015, 06:15:12 PM »

I agree that we will certainly not be extinct in 30 years. But Guy McPherson is guilty of being early, not alarmist or hyperbolic...

...RE, this is not about Guy McPherson. He is not alone in his warning, even if he is more strident than other scientists out there.

Timeline questions speak to your credibility.  It ruins Guy's credibility to put such a short timeline on this.

Indeed, the planet faces an existential threat, and Homo Sap does too, along with many other species.  However, it is unlikely life itself is threatened, as you yourself point out the Tardigrades almost surely will survive anything thrown at them.  Extremophiles like that can stand 1000s of bequerels of radiation, the vacuum and near absolute zero temperatures in space, etc.

In terms of what to me seems likely here, I am going to write an article Debunking Near Term Human Extinction.  Out past a century, the likelihood grows for this if we don't change things, but things will be changed for us.  Because Mother Earth is gonna knock Homo Sap to the Canvass here inside this century, that is a sure thing.  There will be so few left they just won't be able to do the damage they did when in vast numbers.

Then the Earth will heal.  That will take centuries, millenia, but it will occur.  We're not out of the sweet spot yet, we got about another 300M years left there, and some forms of life from today will make it through this extinction event, just as our ancestors made it through the Permian Extinction.

Done before, it can be DONE AGAIN.

re
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2015, 07:05:56 PM »

I agree that we will certainly not be extinct in 30 years. But Guy McPherson is guilty of being early, not alarmist or hyperbolic...

...RE, this is not about Guy McPherson. He is not alone in his warning, even if he is more strident than other scientists out there.

Timeline questions speak to your credibility.  It ruins Guy's credibility to put such a short timeline on this.

But peak oilers and resource scarcity type Malthusians, them, it doesn't effect?

Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2015, 08:14:51 PM »
RE said,
Quote
Indeed, the planet faces an existential threat, and Homo Sap does too, along with many other species.  However, it is unlikely life itself is threatened, as you yourself point out the Tardigrades almost surely will survive anything thrown at them.  Extremophiles like that can stand 1000s of bequerels of radiation, the vacuum and near absolute zero temperatures in space, etc.

In terms of what to me seems likely here, I am going to write an article Debunking Near Term Human Extinction.  Out past a century, the likelihood grows for this if we don't change things, but things will be changed for us.  Because Mother Earth is gonna knock Homo Sap to the Canvass here inside this century, that is a sure thing.  There will be so few left they just won't be able to do the damage they did when in vast numbers.

RE,

I hope you take David Wasdell's wisdom into consideration in your article:

Why positive feedback mechanisms will not be prevented by incremental measures.

David Wasdell is a credentialed scientist. He was a reviewer in IPCC studies. He explains how the SCIENCE was downplayed by lawyers from various governments. This was done so the science predicting catastrophe (i.e. NON-linearity of degradation acceleration) WOULD NOT be made public. The only hard position reached by the IPCC is that climate change is anthropogenic, PERIOD. Since then things have improved somewhat on the truth about the gravity of our situation, but the public is still mostly in the dark about the existential threat calmly explained here.

David Wasdell makes it clear that strategy geared to today's symptoms is insufficient because causal elements have a 40 to 50 year lag. Incremental measures based on present observations are, not just doomed to fail, they guarantee that they will fail in the future. Only massive, government sponsored action NOW has a chance (and even that is not a sure thing, as is stated in this video) of somewhat ameliorating the probability of catastrophe. He clearly states that a massive extinction event destroying over 80% of life on earth will be triggered by about 30 positive feedback loops that credentialed climate scientists agree will overwhelm the ability of our technology to stop them.

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg3824/#msg3824
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32521
    • View Profile
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2015, 08:37:57 PM »
I hope you take David Wasdell's wisdom into consideration in your article

I'm aware of the work and aware of the positive feedback loops and the time lag.  I will incorporate an analysis of this in the article.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2015, 09:50:21 PM »
I hope you take David Wasdell's wisdom into consideration in your article

I'm aware of the work and aware of the positive feedback loops and the time lag.  I will incorporate an analysis of this in the article.

RE

Thank you.

I also want to point out that it is not fair to impugn the credibility of a scientist like McPherson for being early on predictions when all scientists that are woefully  late on predictions don't have their credibility questioned. Those scientists are considered "prudent and conservative". Being ridiculously way off is WISHFUL THINKING, not being "prudent and conservative".

Every IPCC scientist behind the models (see below) that predicted the north polar sea ice summer minimum reached in 2012 to not be reached until 2060 (models ensemble mean) and 2035 (models ensemble standard deviation) and every lawyer that filtered the basic science behind the reports to FORCE the models to be more "conservative" should have had THEIR credibility dragged over the coals!  But don't expect MKing and friends to agree to that. Fossil Fuel "logic" is ALWAYS on the side of foot dragging disguised as "conservative" model predictions, PERIOD. 



Scientific Credibility is a two way street!
« Last Edit: September 20, 2015, 10:04:14 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32521
    • View Profile
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2015, 09:55:02 PM »

I also want to point out that it is not fair to impugn the credibility of a scientist like McPherson for being early on predictions when all scientists that are woefully  late on predictions don't have their credibility questioned.

It's perfectly fair for me to do it, since I question the conclusions of ALL "scientists", not just GM.

I'm like Don Rickles in Science Stand Up Comedy.  You can't call me a bigot because I make fun of EVERYBODY:icon_mrgreen:

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2015, 10:02:22 PM »

I also want to point out that it is not fair to impugn the credibility of a scientist like McPherson for being early on predictions when all scientists that are woefully  late on predictions don't have their credibility questioned.

It's perfectly fair for me to do it, since I question the conclusions of ALL "scientists", not just GM.

I'm like Don Rickles in Science Stand Up Comedy.  You can't call me a bigot because I make fun of EVERYBODY:icon_mrgreen:

RE

I certainly hope so. It's time those cowardly fucks at the IPCC  (AND the government LAWYERS) were given a good lambasting for wishful thinking la la land predictions! 
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32521
    • View Profile
Re: Guy McPherson is on to something.
« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2015, 10:54:56 PM »

I also want to point out that it is not fair to impugn the credibility of a scientist like McPherson for being early on predictions when all scientists that are woefully  late on predictions don't have their credibility questioned.

It's perfectly fair for me to do it, since I question the conclusions of ALL "scientists", not just GM.

I'm like Don Rickles in Science Stand Up Comedy.  You can't call me a bigot because I make fun of EVERYBODY:icon_mrgreen:

RE

I certainly hope so. It's time those cowardly fucks at the IPCC  (AND the government LAWYERS) were given a good lambasting for wishful thinking la la land predictions! 

For the record, IMHO the jackasses producing those IPCC Reports are even MORE WRONG than GM is.  That stuff is politicl pablum disguised as science.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Guy McPherson

Started by Theta « 1 2 ... 6 7 » Environment

104 Replies
17773 Views
Last post November 01, 2015, 06:43:18 AM
by Fenixor
85 Replies
11949 Views
Last post April 09, 2016, 07:36:42 PM
by K-Dog
86 Replies
9559 Views
Last post November 21, 2017, 09:14:25 AM
by RE