Are we green yet?

[bob]

Yes indeed. Let's not argue with science, you'll only end up looking ignorant. How do you feel when someone illiterate in design or sign making tells how that you are doing it wrong? It is no different then assuming science is flawed with climate research. It's just honest math people.

Not argue with science? All science is is argument. From the statements above it would seem that your understanding of doing science is woefully primitive.

The scientific method for the semi-literate:

1. Pose a predictive hypothesis. The hypothesis must predict some phenomenon or another.

2. Construct a critical experiment that either confirms or disproves your hypothesis. If an experiment is not capable of disproving an hypothesis then it is meaningless.

3. Time passes. Your hypothesis either remains in a state of tenuous confirmation, is disproved, or becomes a law-like statement.

Note that an hypothesis is either confirmed or it is disproved. It can never be proved, only confirmed. Anyone who says 'Scientifically proven' does not know their a$$ from a warm rock.

Doing science is not merely wearing white lab coats and being methodical nor is it providing post hoc descriptions and/or explanations for events already transpired. What you call 'climate science' has never, as in ever, posed much less conducted a critical experiment. Moreover, if you're going to pose that some mechanism or another is changing the climate, it's incumbent upon to do define what the climate would be if this mechanism were not working. In other words, how could you tell the difference?

It appears that those crying 'climate change' do so whenever the weather isn't what they either wanted or expected it to be. Here's a newsflash for all of those specimens: Predicting the weather is predicting the future, an impossible feat.

Here's another newsflash: You have so little effect on the environment around you that whether or not you ever existed would be impossible to determine simply from your pathetic efforts to stain yourself green.

 

[Gene@mpls]

Sheldon (or Pete) meet our Bob. Stop in if you get to the TC- just off I35W

 

[Pete Moss]

Oh my, I guess Bob's articulation combined with a cute cloud graphic is intended to be your exclamation point on the subject? Again I will leave the science to the scientist. I am not going to presume I know more about climate change than an expert (the typical climate scientist has at least 6 years and usually 8 of higher education dedicated to this field) nor would I care to make assumptions based on my personal belief. How many years of education do you have on the subject? I am completely open to facts regarding climate change and do not go by my personal beliefs on the subject. The facts presented inform me that climate change is in fact real and people do indeed have an effect on it. I am open to either possibility it is just that the current data points overwhelmingly to the fact that it is real and co2 emissions are one of the major culprits. Belief that it is not caused by such is just turning a blind eye and is a fading viewpoint, antiquated, really. At any rate, lets say I am wrong, what is the worst thing that can come from being more eco friendly? Fresher air? Changing trends in economics? Whereas if you are wrong, which I am sorry you do not have the humility to admit, human existence is at risk. Unfortunately, I fear that your mind is made up and there is nothing I can say to change that. I don't see the point in wasting anymore time on this.

 

[bob]

... At any rate, lets say I am wrong, what is the worst thing that can come from being more eco friendly? Fresher air? Changing trends in economics? Whereas if you are wrong, which I am sorry you do not have the humility to admit, human existence is at risk...

That, sport, is what's known as Pascal's Wager. Once and always a fallacy.

...Unfortunately, I fear that your mind is made up and there is nothing I can say to change that. I don't see the point in wasting anymore time on this...

If you have some actual science and not pseudo-scientific twaddle you can trot out you could easily convince others of your position. But you do not.

Regardless, the point is not that my mind is or is not made up on the issue. Rather it's that I simply do not care. The entire external reality exists to serve me and for no other reason. I care not a dram of rancid rhinoceros drool for what it was before I arrived or what will become of it when my three score and ten elapse. I live here, I do the best I can. For me. I take what I need and try not to leave too large of a divot. Not because I have any particular interest in the environment, but because it's too much work.

 

[BIG EASY DOES IT]

I uh, use ES3 inks.. and ... dump waste ink into kitty litter filled buckets instead of the drain.

Let's face it - our industry wastes a TON of material, and if it lasts 5 years without fading on a sign, imagine how long vinyl lasts in a landfill.

I guess I could give the vinyl backing waste to kids to use like wax paper on slides.

(I do like the tarp bin idea, that's clever)

I hate the new lightbulbs, coke tastes better in a glass bottle and has to be made out of sugar, ethanol is the biggest crock ever, and my power bill.. outrageous!

Coke tastes better from mexico is what your saying. There the ones that still make cane sugar sweetened coke. Though they started offering it in the states for a higher cost.

 

[CES020]

The facts presented inform me that climate change is in fact real and people do indeed have an effect on it. I am open to either possibility it is just that the current data points overwhelmingly to the fact that it is real and co2 emissions are one of the major culprits. Belief that it is not caused by such is just turning a blind eye and is a fading viewpoint, antiquated, really.

You do realize that there is a list or petition with 30,000 scientists signatures on it that say there's no such thing, right?

I will add that I have no idea. I'm not a scientist.

 

[Gino]

I just love a good Friday afternoon get-together. Matters not what anyone says, as long as you can say your piece.

Mine is.... I'm just grateful God invented Bushmill. It gives me so much pleasure and when these heavy debates come up after two or three years, all over again.... it's kinda like spitting up in your mouth just a little bit.

 

[Pete Moss]

That, sport, is what's known as Pascal's Wager. Once and always a fallacy.



If you have some actual science and not pseudo-scientific twaddle you can trot out you could easily convince others of your position. But you do not.

Regardless, the point is not that my mind is or is not made up on the issue. Rather it's that I simply do not care. The entire external reality exists to serve me and for no other reason. I care not a dram of rancid rhinoceros drool for what it was before I arrived or what will become of it when my three score and ten elapse. I live here, I do the best I can. For me. I take what I need and try not to leave too large of a divot. Not because I have any particular interest in the environment, but because it's too much work.

Although I see the parallel you are trying to draw with Pascal's Wager, I do not see the relevance. Pascal's Wager has to do with a philosophy regarding peoples views of God, God's laws and how people live in relationship to them. Thank you for informing me about this though, interesting to know. My deduction was more about erring on the side of caution.

I am understanding you logic and view points now. Thank you for sharing your interesting perspective. Everyone is entitled to their own views of existentialism.

As far as actual proof I will direct you to the NASA website on climate change:
http://climate.nasa.gov/

It is full of facts and data supporting what I have been speaking of.

To me it is common sensical. One inhales smoke over a period of time, specifically smoke with co2 (a), and one can expect to experience negative ramifications. I cannot see why the environment would be much different.



(a) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20387988


Enough about this stuff anyway, I am here for the awesome sign resources! Back to it and back to production....

Nice chatting with you, enjoy the weekend!

 

[Pete Moss]

I just love a good Friday afternoon get-together. Matters not what anyone says, as long as you can say your piece.

Mine is.... I'm just grateful God invented Bushmill. It gives me so much pleasure and when these heavy debates come up after two or three years, all over again.... it's kinda like spitting up in your mouth just a little bit.

 

[BIG EASY DOES IT]

Climate changes that's how the world works. There are 2000+ years of unkept records of weather changes. We have been tracking weather only since 1659 in Europe and worldwide only since 1850. So after 130 years we think we are experts on the worlds climate. Yes it might be warming over the last 30 years or so but that's almost half the amount of time we have been measuring it. So how do we know where we came from and where we are at now. Global Warming is hype started by gore to push his initiatives through the legislature.

 

[Pete Moss]

You do realize that there is a list or petition with 30,000 scientists signatures on it that say there's no such thing, right?

I will add that I have no idea. I'm not a scientist.

Can you please send a link to this list? I wouldn't be surprised if this were true, the problem unfortunately, with some studies, is that people are too easily swayed with financial gain. Too many multi-national corporations have too much to loose with the rise of green technologies. I'll continue to put my trust with the Climate Scientist at NASA.

 

[BIG EASY DOES IT]

http://www.petitionproject.org/

and it's at 31,487

 

[TimToad]

You do realize that there is a list or petition with 30,000 scientists signatures on it that say there's no such thing, right?

I will add that I have no idea. I'm not a scientist.

Did any of you see the John Stewart Show last night? He touched on the very anti-intellectual, anti-science, no-nothing, do-nothing mindset that got us to this point in our environmental conditions to begin with. Your last statement pretty much sums up the fun JS had with your type last night.

You can't have it both ways. If you distrust climate change scientists on one side, but try to trot out 30k of what you think are "approved" scientists in your mind because they support your belief system, that's a pretty inconsistent respect for science in of itself.

If there truly were 30,000 credible, climate related scientists on some list or petition somewhere on this planet proclaiming their united disbelief in the overwhelming evidence of the changes our climate and ecological systems are undergoing, it would be a major news story on every network.

 

[TimToad]

http://www.petitionproject.org/

and it's at 31,487

Only 10% of that list are actually credentialed in or are primarily studying in the atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences. I'm sure if you add up all the thousands of neo-conservative and corporate employed engineers, chemists, agricultural, biologists, mathematicians, etc. just from the the Fortune 500, you'd come up with close to 30,000 pinheads willing to sign onto anything the bossman tells them to sign.

 

[BIG EASY DOES IT]

Why would those news companies want to publicize something that will hurt a lot of the sponsers of their program. I'm not saying I trust either one. I am saying the world has been around for 3000 years depending on what you believe maybe millions of years. We have data on like 3% of that time. That's all the info that these so called climate experts have to go off of. How can you be an expert on something if you only know 3% of it. And if you think it was milliions of years then they only know a fraction of a %.

 

[TimToad]

Why would those news companies want to publicize something that will hurt a lot of the sponsers of their program. I'm not saying I trust either one. I am saying the world has been around for 3000 years depending on what you believe maybe millions of years. We have data on like 3% of that time. That's all the info that these so called climate experts have to go off of. How can you be an expert on something if you only know 3% of it. And if you think it was milliions of years then they only know a fraction of a %.

Folks like you crack me up. You'll suggest some nefarious financial motive to freakin' geeky scientists tracking changes in our atmosphere, climate, weather, etc. for the benefit of us and future generations but the profit driven, corporate employed drillers, scrapers, etc. get a free ride on having their motivations questioned because your own personal belief system won't allow you to believe that humans could soil their own nest even unintentionally?

So, you don't even accept the fossil record or carbon dating as credible scientific processes? I suppose all those climate scientists out drilling core samples from the Greenland ice shelves tracking its history and stability are just wasting their time and freeze their cans off while risking their lives for the money?

Whoa...... that's pretty scary.

It doesn't matter if we fully understand the entire life's history of the planet in order to confront the problems in the present and on the horizon. There are highly skilled, credible people that know just how much CO2 and other ozone layer depleting pollutants our atmosphere can handle before irreversible damage occurs and life on earth gets real dicey due to increasing levels of radiation hitting earth.

 

[Gino]

Yo................

All of you. Shut the fug up and take a break. It's Friday late afterfrickin'noon. Who cares right now about any of this ?? Go home, have a nice meal, do your thang and talk about this heavy crap next week, when we run out of ink to buy, fuses to find and fonts to identify.

The earth's been around a long long time and has survived centuries of ice ages, droughts and other bad times, so it's still here and gonna be here for another coupla billion years, so chill out. Remember, mankind to earth is nothing more than like a pimple on an elephant's a$$. Enjoy the ride while it lasts.

 

[Pete Moss]

Did any of you see the John Stewart Show last night? He touched on the very anti-intellectual, anti-science, no-nothing, do-nothing mindset that got us to this point in our environmental conditions to begin with. Your last statement pretty much sums up the fun JS had with your type last night.

You can't have it both ways. If you distrust climate change scientists on one side, but try to trot out 30k of what you think are "approved" scientists in your mind because they support your belief system, that's a pretty inconsistent respect for science in of itself.

If there truly were 30,000 credible, climate related scientists on some list or petition somewhere on this planet proclaiming their united disbelief in the overwhelming evidence of the changes our climate and ecological systems are undergoing, it would be a major news story on every network.

Thanks Tim.

 

[Pete Moss]

Yo................

All of you. Shut the fug up and take a break. It's Friday late afterfrickin'noon. Who cares right now about any of this ?? Go home, have a nice meal, do your thang and talk about this heavy crap next week, when we run out of ink to buy, fuses to find and fonts to identify.

The earth's been around a long long time and has survived centuries of ice ages, droughts and other bad times, so it's still here and gonna be here for another coupla billion years, so chill out. Remember, mankind to earth is nothing more than like a pimple on an elephant's a$$. Enjoy the ride while it lasts.

:ROFLMAO:
I am going to shut the fug up and do my thang now, thanks Gino! Keep doing your thang!

 

[TimToad]

Why would those news companies want to publicize something that will hurt a lot of the sponsers of their program. I'm not saying I trust either one. I am saying the world has been around for 3000 years depending on what you believe maybe millions of years. We have data on like 3% of that time. That's all the info that these so called climate experts have to go off of. How can you be an expert on something if you only know 3% of it. And if you think it was milliions of years then they only know a fraction of a %.

I don't know what kind of programming you watch or how many places you've lived, but I gotta tell ya after living in four different parts of the country, MOST of the mainstream media's major commercial sponsors are the very corporations doing the most polluting of our environment. Turn on any one of the Sunday morning "opinion making" talk shows and you'll be bombarded with G/E, Monsanto, Koch Bros, BP, every car maker, ADM, the U.S. Military Industrial complex, etc...

Even on supposedly "liberal" PBS, the major sponsors of ALL of their news/talk related programming are the same crowd of big polluters, conservative foundations, etc.