there 'ya go DB i put it in there just for you
your turn.
guess not..
so if tax incentives aren't your thing..
what is the solution?
The Sun affects our weather??? Oh Noooooo!
- Thread starter grapeman
- Start date
- Status
guess not..
so if tax incentives aren't your thing..
what is the solution?
an analogy using grapeman and the table grape industry
an analogy using grapeman and the table grape industry
I've been reading up on grapeman's day job. Been thinking about his successes and whether they're actually successes at all. I have no basis for marginalizing grapeman but I still need a motive for my baseless assumptions.
One motive might be I'm considering profiting from the table grape industry and by marginalizing a competitor (whom I fancy as against my best interests) I may benefit.
If I were fortunate enough to train with someone of grapeman's expertise, I might be able to shave decades of trial and error from my efforts. Better yet, if I could observe all the unsaid and unpublished intricacies of the education, application and skill of the professional occupation I'd really sell the grapes.
But for some unsaid, unexplained and possibly unfathomable reason, I have the innate sense I can't be competitive if grapeman is. Based on this very unusual assumption I seek to discredit grapeman and lend credence to my own (whatever?) and hopefully increase my profit share.
Back to the education part. I don't know dick about growing grapes, let alone the high aspirations of the table grape industry. But I'm a professional in my own right and I can certainly substitute my non grape-specific expertise for the task of spinning a bunch of distraction. Maybe I'll distract ol' grapeman in the process and limit his successes, somehow theoretically enhancing mine.
What could I possibly substitute as fathomable to a bunch of folks that know as little as I of growing a few thousand tons o' table grapes every season. Who cares? I know I can always default to the lowest common denominator... which political persuasion he subscribes.
How convenient, we already polarize any and all subjects when they devolve into politicization. Even if I can't hold a candle to grapeman's professional expertise but I can giggle that he must be corrupt, based on his party affiliation and the way he approaches the theories of economic growth.
I know the base argument between free market vs regulated capitalism like the back of my hand. Anything grapeman posts that has the mere hint of conservative values can be spun into rhetoric. Pavlov's bell to all like political-thinkers. Maybe I'll get some help from these folks that either don't know or don't care of the differences between grapeman's professional expertise and protocols vs the art of spin.
What about the fact that grapeman's not some empirical god of the vine? (He's actually a part of a professional community that shares information, develops methods and protocols for actions that work and collectively discards actions and information that doesn't work.)
Doesn't matter, especially if one is so clouded with ideology that they ignore grapeman's acres of vinyards, the truckloads of grapes that leave his farm and the proceeds he draws from customers. Never mind the past years, not to mention the past generations that say the same thing.
Fuck that, just pound anything that doesn't make enough sense to the general public that hopefully won't recognize the clown when shown the entire and endless circus.
Just pound the time he pontificated success and had less than. Never mind the fact he's since learned far more from less than well studied successes and is selling more grapes than ever.
After all, one can't even look at all the physical evidence that would make even a 3 year old laugh out loud, let alone pay attention to it. Better to pound the noise so loud that grapeman can't possibly match the volume and the repetitiveness...
and the repetitiveness
and the repetitiveness
and the repetitiveness
and the repetitiveness...
Ever time we get a talking point or a so-called new study, we'll flood 11,000 references on the internet.
Oh, people really lend less credence to non-professional blogs that bash their subjects in unprofessional ways? That doesn't matter at all. Here's some letterhead that looks like grapeman's stationary. We even have a rubber stamp of his grandfather's signature. Our so-called studies will look like they came from a card-carrying table-grape industry dewd.
Alas, even the dumbest guy on the block knows grapeman's the shit in grape sales. Doesn't matter, there's still that idea that grapeman's successes will thwart others'. This idea will never evaporate, despite evidence to the contrary. It's really the only underlying nail that props up the entire facade of skepticism, lol.
In the end, grapeman is still antagonized as a buffoon yet detractors still can't say shit about his permanently-died purple thumbs. Such is life, it can't be refuted. But every time it's publicized, like thinkers will devolve into all the buffoonery that rhetoric can suggest.
When all potential competitors finally have to concede that the table grape industry's successors know what they're talking about, it'll never be confirmed. Somewhere out there is a way to spin grapeman into the no grape-growing buffoon he must certainly be (under all his smoke and mirrors.) Forget the evidence, that's not the game being played. This is all about preserving ideology.
Maybe somebody might intercept his communications and somehow re-contextualize his subject matter. The more time he spends having to correct the record (especially enduring no less than eight independent investigations) the less time he'll have to sell grapes and somehow, promote the idiot's idiot idea he's taking away potential profits.
Whew! Years of fuckin' denying grapman's successes really make the skeptics look like a bunch of retards. Who gives a fuck? His political ideology is so hated that the entertainment value alone is worth flogging. Yee haa!
an analogy using grapeman and the table grape industry
I've been reading up on grapeman's day job. Been thinking about his successes and whether they're actually successes at all. I have no basis for marginalizing grapeman but I still need a motive for my baseless assumptions.
One motive might be I'm considering profiting from the table grape industry and by marginalizing a competitor (whom I fancy as against my best interests) I may benefit.
If I were fortunate enough to train with someone of grapeman's expertise, I might be able to shave decades of trial and error from my efforts. Better yet, if I could observe all the unsaid and unpublished intricacies of the education, application and skill of the professional occupation I'd really sell the grapes.
But for some unsaid, unexplained and possibly unfathomable reason, I have the innate sense I can't be competitive if grapeman is. Based on this very unusual assumption I seek to discredit grapeman and lend credence to my own (whatever?) and hopefully increase my profit share.
Back to the education part. I don't know dick about growing grapes, let alone the high aspirations of the table grape industry. But I'm a professional in my own right and I can certainly substitute my non grape-specific expertise for the task of spinning a bunch of distraction. Maybe I'll distract ol' grapeman in the process and limit his successes, somehow theoretically enhancing mine.
What could I possibly substitute as fathomable to a bunch of folks that know as little as I of growing a few thousand tons o' table grapes every season. Who cares? I know I can always default to the lowest common denominator... which political persuasion he subscribes.
How convenient, we already polarize any and all subjects when they devolve into politicization. Even if I can't hold a candle to grapeman's professional expertise but I can giggle that he must be corrupt, based on his party affiliation and the way he approaches the theories of economic growth.
I know the base argument between free market vs regulated capitalism like the back of my hand. Anything grapeman posts that has the mere hint of conservative values can be spun into rhetoric. Pavlov's bell to all like political-thinkers.
Maybe I'll get some help from these folks that either don't know or don't care of the differences between grapeman's professional expertise and protocols vs the art of spin.What about the fact that grapeman's not some empirical god of the vine? (He's actually a part of a professional community that shares information, develops methods and protocols for actions that work and collectively discards actions and information that doesn't work.)
Doesn't matter, especially if one is so clouded with ideology that they ignore grapeman's acres of vinyards, the truckloads of grapes that leave his farm and the proceeds he draws from customers. Never mind the past years, not to mention the past generations that say the same thing.
Fuck that, just pound anything that doesn't make enough sense to the general public that hopefully won't recognize the clown when shown the entire and endless circus.
Just pound the time he pontificated success and had less than. Never mind the fact he's since learned far more from less than well studied successes and is selling more grapes than ever.
After all, one can't even look at all the physical evidence that would make even a 3 year old laugh out loud, let alone pay attention to it. Better to pound the noise so loud that grapeman can't possibly match the volume and the repetitiveness...
and the repetitiveness
and the repetitiveness
and the repetitiveness
and the repetitiveness...
Ever time we get a talking point or a so-called new study, we'll flood 11,000 references on the internet.
Oh, people really lend less credence to non-professional blogs that bash their subjects in unprofessional ways? That doesn't matter at all. Here's some letterhead that looks like grapeman's stationary. We even have a rubber stamp of his grandfather's signature. Our so-called studies will look like they came from a card-carrying table-grape industry dewd.
Alas, even the dumbest guy on the block knows grapeman's the shit in grape sales. Doesn't matter, there's still that idea that grapeman's successes will thwart others'. This idea will never evaporate, despite evidence to the contrary. It's really the only underlying nail that props up the entire facade of skepticism, lol.
In the end, grapeman is still antagonized as a buffoon yet detractors still can't say shit about his permanently-died purple thumbs. Such is life, it can't be refuted. But every time it's publicized, like thinkers will devolve into all the buffoonery that rhetoric can suggest.
When all potential competitors finally have to concede that the table grape industry's successors know what they're talking about, it'll never be confirmed. Somewhere out there is a way to spin grapeman into the no grape-growing buffoon he must certainly be (under all his smoke and mirrors.) Forget the evidence, that's not the game being played. This is all about preserving ideology.
Maybe somebody might intercept his communications and somehow re-contextualize his subject matter. The more time he spends having to correct the record (especially enduring no less than eight independent investigations) the less time he'll have to sell grapes and somehow, promote the idiot's idiot idea he's taking away potential profits.
Whew! Years of fuckin' denying grapman's successes really make the skeptics look like a bunch of retards. Who gives a fuck? His political ideology is so hated that the entertainment value alone is worth flogging. Yee haa!
Not correct. If you are wrong, the world would have spent itself into poverty for nothing.... except of course the faux carbon traders who trade the air we breathe.
To get an idea of what they'll cap, breath into and out of a paper bag for a few minutes. When your cognizance and reasoning takes a hit... well, in your case it's nothing unusual.
Here - this will piss off you unemployed democrats. From Dr. Roy Spencer himself in an interview with Lou Dobbs.
Re-posted by the great Rush Limbaugh.
Dr. Roy Spencer on New Research
August 4, 2011
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Dobbs said, "A new study of NASA, satellite data, blowing the theory of climate change effects right out of the atmosphere. NASA's data shows the future effects of global warming could be far less than what most computer models to this point have predicted. As I understand it, basically you talk about real data other than those possibilities encountered by computers? There is no contest between the two results. What is the effect of climate change right now? What did you discover in your study?"
SPENCER: We used ten years of the best NASA satellite data we have, and what we did was we looked at warm years versus cold years, and during warm years we found that cloud change in a such a way to reduce the amount of warming -- and what's interesting is that's totally opposite of all the climate models you hear about that are forecasting global warming because those models all change clouds in such a way to amplify the warming.
RUSH: So Dobbs says, "If we take the amplification and the reduction revealed with your data research, what is the percentage of the fact of the conclusions of the impact of global change."
SPENCER: The United Nations official forecast for the next, let's say, a hundred years is a total of about three degrees C of warming; and what we're finding from the real satellite data of how the real climate system operates, that it might be more like 1 degree C of warming, and maybe even less. If that's the case then we've gone from global warming being a serious problem to global warming being... You know, some people will think it's not worth worrying about because, who knows? In other 50 to a hundred years we may not be relying that much on fossil fuels anymore anyway.
RUSH: And they're not contributing to warming. So the whole thing has been a hoax. I'm gonna stick with the word hoax. Dr. Spencer will not. He won't go that far. I've argued with him about it. I've said, "Why do you even bother responding to these stupid claims that are political?" "Well, I'm a scientist. We have to do it." So he's done it, and he's proved, with actual NASA science data from their satellites, that all these computer models are bogus -- and 69% of the American people now say it's likely scientists have been lying about their own research.
We win!
for those of you who do not comprehend well, this means the IPCC models are not correct. Have never been correct and are skewed to give your religion the results you desire.
Feel free to allow your cars to idle all night long. No problems.
Re-posted by the great Rush Limbaugh.
Dr. Roy Spencer on New Research
August 4, 2011
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Dobbs said, "A new study of NASA, satellite data, blowing the theory of climate change effects right out of the atmosphere. NASA's data shows the future effects of global warming could be far less than what most computer models to this point have predicted. As I understand it, basically you talk about real data other than those possibilities encountered by computers? There is no contest between the two results. What is the effect of climate change right now? What did you discover in your study?"
SPENCER: We used ten years of the best NASA satellite data we have, and what we did was we looked at warm years versus cold years, and during warm years we found that cloud change in a such a way to reduce the amount of warming -- and what's interesting is that's totally opposite of all the climate models you hear about that are forecasting global warming because those models all change clouds in such a way to amplify the warming.
RUSH: So Dobbs says, "If we take the amplification and the reduction revealed with your data research, what is the percentage of the fact of the conclusions of the impact of global change."
SPENCER: The United Nations official forecast for the next, let's say, a hundred years is a total of about three degrees C of warming; and what we're finding from the real satellite data of how the real climate system operates, that it might be more like 1 degree C of warming, and maybe even less. If that's the case then we've gone from global warming being a serious problem to global warming being... You know, some people will think it's not worth worrying about because, who knows? In other 50 to a hundred years we may not be relying that much on fossil fuels anymore anyway.
RUSH: And they're not contributing to warming. So the whole thing has been a hoax. I'm gonna stick with the word hoax. Dr. Spencer will not. He won't go that far. I've argued with him about it. I've said, "Why do you even bother responding to these stupid claims that are political?" "Well, I'm a scientist. We have to do it." So he's done it, and he's proved, with actual NASA science data from their satellites, that all these computer models are bogus -- and 69% of the American people now say it's likely scientists have been lying about their own research.
We win!
for those of you who do not comprehend well, this means the IPCC models are not correct. Have never been correct and are skewed to give your religion the results you desire.
Feel free to allow your cars to idle all night long. No problems.
Is that the same Roy Spencer who disses the scientific method when his observations fail the peer review process? Watts did the same thing with the scientist who realized things are worse than previously thought. Same tactic with the ends-justifies-the-means crowd.
grapeman is trying to match the number of links, not necessarily any data that refutes decades of research.
Let's see... a dozen posts, 174 links... no sweat. But refuting decades of research and hundreds of peer-reviewed studies... not a chance.
grapeman is trying to match the number of links, not necessarily any data that refutes decades of research.
Let's see... a dozen posts, 174 links... no sweat. But refuting decades of research and hundreds of peer-reviewed studies... not a chance.
See, the original post had a link to a new study, confirmed at CERN, that cosmic rays have an efect on climate.
But your IPCC and M. Mann at Penn State said NO THEY DON'T, and refused to allow for the effects of cosmic radiation.
Now CERN comes along and says ah, boys, ah, cosmic rays do efect the climate and your models are flawed since you do not allow for this effect.
That's as simple as I can make it. If you want change civilization and bring further ruinous economic impact upon us (making this recession look like a walk in the park) based on flawed and false studies, then vote for obama or just about any democrat. If you believe in science, then vote for common sense, which most politicians lack. But you'll find one or two if you look hard.
A perfect example of spinning the scientific facts and substituting economic theory for the scientific process. Roy says cosmic rays are THE catylist, not a less significant phenomenon as categorized by the scientific community.
It's not enough for you to parallel the truth. You have to whack the fact before you can even fabricate that argument.
This is like Frank Luntz spreading his political wisdom coast to coast. It only takes as long as to read the e-mail before droves are parroting him verbatim.
Fuck that, just pound anything that doesn't make enough sense to the general public that hopefully won't recognize the clown when shown the entire and endless circus.
Who gives a fuck? His political ideology is so hated that the entertainment value alone is worth flogging. Yee haa!
I'm all for the competition in business. Brings out the best or you'll soon go home.
In the meantime, I'm just hoping to broaden your horizons.
I think farmers in general are better caretakers of the dirt and environment then most all others. If you want to hate my ideology, I'm pretty much a Libertarian. I won't bother you if you don't bother me sort of guy. I'm for much less government and no subsidies to any business. I like guns and think everyone should carry one.
I want to make money. I want everyone to make money. I don't want to give money away or throw it down the toilet on social programs that have been going on for decades and have failed already (but all you hear is "if they would just give us more money, we can make this work).
Other then that, you would want to hang with me every afternoon at the local cigar shop where all the local capitalists meet and greet daily.
Now you can hate on me.
Poor guy. It's an analogy. You know... role reversal. Never mind, I should have deduced you'd I'm-rubber-you're-glue it.
Neither I nor other science advocates hate you, your religion, your political persuasion, your whatever. But it sure is aggravating when you substitute science with those and more.
IMO, you'd really like feeling hated. Badge of honor sort o' thing. Sorry to disappoint, I look for your rebuttals regularly.
In other words.... I LOVES YA, GRAPEMAN!!!
G
greenmatter
If you go for personal observation, you're not gonna get much of that at IC.
No one suggests you get your climate change information here. That's what the Nation Academy of Sciences website is for. There you'll find links to accredited, peer reviewed, real science and real conclusions. We know what science knows as fact and science concludes the outcome is disastrous for segments of the globe. The evidence is astounding but only if you haven't already decided for yourself that AGW doesn't exist.
You can also personally observe the common misconceptions and learn why they're categorized as such. Then you can personally observe what science considers fact and judge for yourself. Either way you lean, you'll certainly be far more objective.
Yup, I think were at 98.5% consensus. Just a minute... I'm holding a conk shell to my ear to hear it.
.
Ah yes. But we have non-scientific skeptics that assume they're clouding the scientific method and published scientific discourse. You won't read any science advocates purporting their personal 98.5% conclusions here.
No argument here.
Wondering the same about yourself. Wondering what comprises your 98.5% conclusion, not so much.
There are many more threads here to humor your interests.
I can't throw in all the PMs you sent me regarding another IC member and the fact that labeling seemed to be the onus of all those messages. Have to admit I felt a bit baited. I hope you recognized my attempt to high-road your perspective of a given member and apparently their mindset.
Well, you seem to be lending credence to the peanut gallery, under emphasizing the importance of scientific data over non-scientific conclusions and making your own, apparently non-scientific analysis of the outcome.
As compared to your private messages which seem to take the other tack.
The kumbaya comment was actually a compliment, suggesting you'd like to see us all get along better. That's an honorable message.
At least I didn't tangent the private messages and suggest you're either confused or possibly have ulterior motive.
Then seek the meaning of the term scientific method. Observe the scientists who adhere to the scientific method as opposed to those who refute the scientific method. That would be lots closer than whatever you're deducing to be 98.5%.
Nope.
The jury says innocent, guilty, no-contest, judge declares mistrial, gets his proceedings appealed etc etc etc. Doesn't matter what any of those scenarios provide. If you don't agree.... kick their fuggin' ass.
Darwinian devolution of skeptic rebuttal.
o.k. ........ you know the scary thing is i have actually posted in this thread that i believe in the global warming thing and see for myself that we are fucking things up. i never said science is bullshit. so in the end we agree with each other on everything.
we could agree to disagree, if we disagreed ..... but we don't, so i am kind of at a loss.
questioning the the argument does not make me a skeptic, it just makes me a guy who is wondering if we even have a 1.5% chance of changing anyones mind on this subject.
In a free market, good ideas and products rise to the top and become profitable. But when bad ideas and products are forced upon us, the market usually sorts it out eventually. Governments rule at forcing bad ideas and policies upon it's citizens. Take for instance this story
The Carbon Trading scheme. Invented by people that want to control behavior and embraced by governments (controlling people is in government's DNA). Over the last decade this carbon trading scheme has been propped up by phoney government sponsored funding and skewed research and made "cool" by facebook & twitter.
But, it's having a problem. Since there is no real market, and the product being sold is just "free air", can anyone explain WTF it really is other then a wealth redistribution scheme?
Apparently not, and these phoney trading schemes and their traders are losing steam. That's great news for the sane population. Scientific American is a rag I used to subscribe to. Not for 5 years now have I paid money to read their one sided "science". I've moved on to real science publications. But here is an article LAMENTING the fact that carbon trading is falling out of favor with the clear thinking public.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-offsets-near-record-low-wors
Don't you just love markets? They always seem to tell the truth over time.
The Carbon Trading scheme. Invented by people that want to control behavior and embraced by governments (controlling people is in government's DNA). Over the last decade this carbon trading scheme has been propped up by phoney government sponsored funding and skewed research and made "cool" by facebook & twitter.
But, it's having a problem. Since there is no real market, and the product being sold is just "free air", can anyone explain WTF it really is other then a wealth redistribution scheme?
Apparently not, and these phoney trading schemes and their traders are losing steam. That's great news for the sane population. Scientific American is a rag I used to subscribe to. Not for 5 years now have I paid money to read their one sided "science". I've moved on to real science publications. But here is an article LAMENTING the fact that carbon trading is falling out of favor with the clear thinking public.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-offsets-near-record-low-wors
Don't you just love markets? They always seem to tell the truth over time.
The article laments politicization of the issue. Cap and trade isn't a typical investment vehicle, it's market-oriented finance of emission reductions. Comparing cap and trade to investment vehicles ignores this point.
Yeah, they really told us the truth alright.
Greenspan, before the housing bust...
after the housing bust...
Give us a few of your 'real science' examples, grapeman. Aside from referencing the occasional, pre-reviewed observation (you appear to fall for hook-line-and-sinker,) it's all wattsupwiththat.com
Fair and balanced is only fair and or balanced when both sides know what they're talking about.
They should make mandatory a carbon tax for the mj growers who use CO2 enrichment. I think I'll start that fund. Who wants to invest with me?
I say for every lb. of CO2 you growers pump into your grow rooms, you pay me a penny in offsets. I will plant a tree somewhere in the amazon.
Yep, that way we can both do our part to save the earth. You can grow your CO2 enriched pot and I can plant a tree. Of course I don't want any oversight on my fund. Don't come around and ask me how many trees I planted or where. Just send me the check.
And that pretty much describes the carbon trading fiasco to a T.
But you will feel good and I'll give you a certificate you can hang on the wall and show your wife and friends. They'll all know you are a caring giving green human being.
I say for every lb. of CO2 you growers pump into your grow rooms, you pay me a penny in offsets. I will plant a tree somewhere in the amazon.
Yep, that way we can both do our part to save the earth. You can grow your CO2 enriched pot and I can plant a tree. Of course I don't want any oversight on my fund. Don't come around and ask me how many trees I planted or where. Just send me the check.
And that pretty much describes the carbon trading fiasco to a T.
But you will feel good and I'll give you a certificate you can hang on the wall and show your wife and friends. They'll all know you are a caring giving green human being.
...
Last edited:
C
CLOWD11
You actually have to pay us a carbon tax to offset the methane riddled mountains of bullshit coming out of your mouth.
Is that the best you got?
Just pointing out that many of you hippie dippie shits use CO2.
You shit where you eat. Never a good thing.
- Status
