• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The News Thread

HabsAddict said:
Do you actually read the garbage that you post? You and your fellow gurglers really believe that Britain or US would use a WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION against another country on behalf of Israel. Or ANYONE? London or Washington would stand that and say, we need to kill a few million Iranian civilian because we really, really care about the now non-existing state of Israel? And spread fallout over Pakistan, Russia and India? All nuclear powers?

Are you THAT naive or self delusional?

The most laughable term ever coined was and is "nuclear umbrella". It's what major power who have nuclear weapons want to tell the kiddies and stupid ones. Including Canada. At the very best, at theor very strained maximum, they may covertly "lend" a nuke so that a friendly country may exact revenge, but directly attack another with nukes on their behalf? And kill millions? And/or risk nuclear response against themselves?

Get a common sense brain.......
Click to expand...

are you calling the US paper tigers?
 
SundinsTooth said:
Went to a seminar this week and they were talking ethics in geosciences. One practice I heard was pretty crazy...a big petroleum company here in Canada used to do this on a regular basis.

When old tank storage facilities and gas stations would close the company would do an environmental assessment on the state of the soil, groundwater, etc. To save the dough that would routinely be needed to remediate these sites, the company would doctor the tests. They would inject monitoring wells that penetrated these known sources of contaminants, but be long enough that the well screen would also penetrate clean aquifer below the source. That way when they drew sample water up, the concentrations of the organic contaminants would fall well below tolerable limits due to mixing with non-contaminated groundwater.

That is one story of many. This is what is behind that anti-climate science movement.
Click to expand...

This is a very real issue when one is looking at multimillion dollar properties. You have to do a phase 2 now just to make sure. I know a property that is two blocks away from me that had a gas station on it, it now has a retail plaza and it has to be demolished because it is contaminating other properties. I actually inquired about buying it and ran when I heard about the problem.

That situation and small mountains of toxic waist has precious little to do with "anti-climate" discussion other then an attempt to assign guilt by association.
 
Iran won't do anything out of fear of reprisal.

If you don't think for a second their use of a weapon on Israel wouldn't make the US at the very least consider a strike on Iran, you are dumber than I thought. The Israeli lobby, the Republican hawks, the religious fundamentalists in the US would be calling on every station to use one.
 
HabsAddict said:
You're actually making my case about "scientist" clearing other "scientist" who have EXACTLY the same interest and agenda.

Thanks.....
Click to expand...

except course, scientists do not hurt others when they do their climate research, when the fuzz acts illegally, someone usually is beaten up, ripped off etc
 
corksens said:
The environmental movement has alot of money invested in it now.

Solar farms, windfarms, ect. Big companies have their hands in this pot now. This is undeniable.
Click to expand...


Just the professional sky falling lobby is now a several billions dollar business. GreenPeace alone is a quarter billion a year.

Funded by who? The other side of big business including nuclear. The enemy of my enemy.....
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
Iran won't do anything out of fear of reprisal.

If you don't think for a second their use of a weapon on Israel wouldn't make the US at the very least consider a strike on Iran, you are dumber than I thought. The Israeli lobby, the Republican hawks, the religious fundamentalists in the US would be calling on every station to use one.
Click to expand...

Your argument is now evaporating to.........to "consider a strike". A nation who faces getting wiped out of the face of the earth with even ONE nuke strike can now rest easy that the US might consider retaliation.
 
Last edited:
HabsAddict said:
The argument about investigating their won holds for both.

TSk, tsk...your profession should have taught you to make better arguments.
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples and oranges given investigating your fellow scientists is not going to create an uproar if the decision is not what people like you want compared to a decision for police who might have stolen or hurt people. We are supposed to expect more from our police and if they act badly, are to be punished. When their own let them off, there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, right or wrong. Perception is reality.
 
HabsAddict said:
Your argument is now evaporating to.........to "consider a strike". A nation who faces getting wiped out of the face of the earth with even ONE nuke strike can now rest easy that the US might consider retaliation.
Click to expand...

I believe the US would attack Iran with a nuclear weapon as they would then say they were in fear of being attacked because an attack on the state of Israel was an attack on them.
 
HabsAddict said:
You're actually making my case about "scientist" clearing other "scientist" who have EXACTLY the same interest and agenda.

Thanks.....
Click to expand...

I guess it would be a good point but there isn't exactly one team of scientists....there are thousands of them - all competing against each other....if they really had a legitimate complaint they would not hesitate in laying down judgement. It's not like there is this one body of scientists all acting as a hive mind. It is a cut throat world full of larger than life egos and they are definitely not afraid to bury one another.
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
I believe the US would attack Iran with a nuclear weapon as they would then say they were in fear of being attacked because an attack on the state of Israel was an attack on them.
Click to expand...

That statement, unsurprisingly contains a logical fallacy the size of a small planet.

Attacking Iran with nukes would raise the risk of seriously contaminating surrounding nuclear equipped nations, INCREASING the "fear of being attacked" in retaliation.

If anything, that alone would be the pre-text for NOT attacking Iran with nuclear weapons.
 
HabsAddict said:
This is a very real issue when one is looking at multimillion dollar properties. You have to do a phase 2 now just to make sure. I know a property that is two blocks away from me that had a gas station on it, it now has a retail plaza and it has to be demolished because it is contaminating other properties. I actually inquired about buying it and ran when I heard about the problem.

That situation and small mountains of toxic waist has precious little to do with "anti-climate" discussion other then an attempt to assign guilt by association.
Click to expand...


Perhaps not in bright clear colours but it is indicative of what big money is willing to do to circumnavigate environmental issues.

Good call on running from that toxic soup. One of the RIM buildings was finding high levels of organic contaminants in the basement and when they asked the school here to investigate they found out that there was a gas station on the property 40 years ago. Leaky tanks and shallow glacial till....recipe for an expensive nightmare.
 
SundinsTooth said:
I guess it would be a good point but there isn't exactly one team of scientists....there are thousands of them - all competing against each other....if they really had a legitimate complaint they would not hesitate in laying down judgement. It's not like there is this one body of scientists all acting as a hive mind. It is a cut throat world full of larger than life egos and they are definitely not afraid to bury one another.
Click to expand...

That is the way is should be. Science is advanced by not accepting "consensus" or hive mentality.

In the case of Climategate, if it was an independent body examining the issue, I would have some faith in it's finding. Getting one of their own to find guilt makes it a mockery.

As you said, there are so many holes in global warming that you can drive a train through, Climategate serves no purpose other then establishing that there is an organized intent on stifling the very foundation of what open, scientific method is all about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top