Climate Change

[grokit]

Calm down we're just having a friendly conversation.

I didn't post anything, I linked to two postings with conflicting information.

Even ms. curry has no idea what she will find; her main objective seems to be to do a better job than she was able to working within academic and governmental constraints:

"I don’t have any conclusions obviously at this point, the above summarizes the issues that we are grappling with as we set this up"

And in her own words, to explore her other interests like leveraging social media.

Hopefully she has no polemic political, or ambitious financial, agendas.

All I can do is the same as most everyone else; an ounce of prevention and all that.

What if her new research confirms that it's not just the hundreds year-old fishing villages that are being relocated now, but that many large coastal cities will need to be relocated in the future?

At that point, it becomes a huge economic, political and social problem.

That I still can't do anything about.

 

[herbivore21]

At this point, the private sector seems like a more ‘honest’ place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs — at least when you are your own boss. anyone else to pay for it).

Gotta jump in here man; if you think that fraught issues like this are problems in public institutions, you oughtta see just how messy shit can get when private money is involved! So much bunk science has been carried out by people with legit credentials who moved into the private sector because there's simply more secure income there. Profit motives unfortunately do not necessarily align with the best methodological practices which can often cost large amounts just in man-hours.

One example where private research is a significant problem is in medicine as we know, where medicine can be approved to be sold on the basis of research funded by the applicant/vendor (either directly or in a more covert way). This is an obvious conflict of interest as I'm sure you'd agree man

Medicine is often quite politicized but no matter which side of the fence you sit on, but we can all agree that climate science is just about the most politically contentious topic in all of science! Private money should be scrutinized accordingly as in the above medical example. This is not to say anything of that author's new employment arrangements which I know nothing about

The answers to dealing better with the ethics in science are unfortunately not as simple as making everything private, nor necessarily public for that matter. It is possible to have private donations funding independent research without strings attached (especially to the outcomes of the study!) and keeping researchers/administrators at arms length from donors - but this has to be done with checks and balances. If these conditions can be achieved then that's just more research being done properly than would otherwise and more power to all of us! Where these conditions can't be met, better to avoid that private money IMHO

 

[t-dub]

@grokit - then why was the "hockey stick" faked. And why does all the data get "adjusted" from NOAH/NASA? They adust it, but if they were doing an unbiased job, then the "adjustments" wouldn't be going in one direction only, year after year, its statistically impossible and starting to really show.
This is why their computer models don't work, none of them ever have, and they never will because they are built on a fake assumption and corrupt data. The climate will/has to change, in fact if it didn't we would all perish. Only in Camelot does the weather never change, which is different than climate. In fact if you do not know the difference between weather and climate you do not belong in this discussion. Also lets not forget that the #1 greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, holding in 96% of our beautiful heat, is WATER VAPOR and without it we would all die.

if you think that fraught issues like this are problems in public institutions, you oughtta see just how messy shit can get when private money is involved! So much bunk science has been carried out by people with legit credentials who moved into the private sector because there's simply more secure income there. Profit motives unfortunately do not necessarily align with the best methodological practices

Just look at the grants and reputations being developed under this fraud.

One example where private research is a significant problem is in medicine as we know

And why is that? Because they design the drugs that I need to exist? Agreed they are probably going to kill me in the long term but we will see. I am ready for the risk. I feel lucky to have a choice. And as I burn a path for people afflicted as I am into the future, so be it. Maybe I am a lab rat but hopefully my experience will help someone eventually.

The answers to dealing better with the ethics in science are unfortunately not as simple as making everything private, nor necessarily public for that matter. It is possible to have private donations funding independent research without strings attached (especially to the outcomes of the study!) and keeping researchers/administrators at arms length from donors - but this has to be done with checks and balances. If these conditions can be achieved then that's just more research being done properly than would otherwise and more power to all of us! Where these conditions can't be met, better to avoid that private money IMHO

Ahh . . . . its the government $$$ that is buying the "consensus" right now in "science" and government $$$ is not private and they are funding the research that has their goals in focus.

 

[grokit]

It sounds like the "official narrative" is about to change dramatically,
with our new peotus's incoming administration.

This will be entertaining to me.

 

[herbivore21]

@grokit - then why was the "hockey stick" faked. And why does all the data get "adjusted" from NOAH/NASA? They adust it, but if they were doing an unbiased job, then the "adjustments" wouldn't be going in one direction only, year after year, its statistically impossible and starting to really show.
This is why their computer models don't work, none of them ever have, and they never will because they are built on a fake assumption and corrupt data. The climate will/has to change, in fact if it didn't we would all perish. Only in Camelot does the weather never change, which is different than climate. In fact if you do not know the difference between weather and climate you do not belong in this discussion.

Just look at the grants and reputations being developed under this fraud.

And why is that? Because they design the drugs that I need to exist? Agreed they are probably going to kill me in the long term but we will see. I am ready for the risk.



Ahh . . . . its the government $$$ that is buying the "consensus" right now in "science" and government $$$ is not private and they are funding the research that has their goals in focus.

You miss my overall point man - the key in any case is to keep the guy signing the check at arm's length from the actual research being carried out and especially avoid any funding being tied pending specific outcomes of research etc. Private interests have been more commonly known to be a problem with these issues.

I would never be accused of saying that government policies for funding independent research in this regard have always been appropriate . Nonetheless, I have to concede that there are more checks and balances in this process than with private donors who can be individuals with total power over funding conditions, or in many cases much smaller corporate boards (smaller than the number of voices that influence government policies that is!) whose overriding profit interest sees decision makers overlooking questions of proper scientific method. It is a matter of less scrutiny = more potential abuses.

But I'm out of this discussion man, I don't like to hang around FC to talk politics, just wanted to share what it is like for scientists from a scientist's point of view before returning to cannabis appreciatin'

 

[seaofgreens]

Besides... Yellowstone will explode and global warming theory will be moot for most of us.

 

[t-dub]

You miss my overall point man - the key in any case is to keep the guy signing the check at arm's length from the actual research being carried out and especially avoid any funding being tied pending specific outcomes of research etc. Private interests have been more commonly known to be a problem with these issues.

True in the past but not regarding this issue. I didn't miss "your point".

But I'm out of this discussion man, I don't like to hang around FC to talk politics

And THAT is the problem . .. its not science any more, is it? Have a good night. I know I will. VXL Cloud EVO heating . . .

 

[MarkSmith]

True in the past but not regarding this issue. I didn't miss "your point".

And THAT is the problem . .. its not science any more, is it? Have a good night. I know I will. VXL Cloud EVO heating . . .

It's true regarding EVERY issue. If you don't understand how money could affect the subject of climate change then I'm really not sure why anyone here even bothers with you.

You've made it painfully clear to everyone that you basically get your information from infowars.

John D. Rockefeller was the richest man in the world at one point. Plus he owned 95% of all the world's oil supplies and reserves at that time. Making him the wealthiest, most powerful man in the world.

So you mean to tell all of us here; that all those multinational corporations that still exist today in the oil/natural gas and coal industries have NO invested interest in keeping the system as it is so they can keep burning pollution off into our air/atmosphere thereby making billions of dollars in the process....?

Also secretly it's those greedy scientists who've hatched an evil plot trying to do.....what exactly? Get grant money to do more research on the subject?? Seriously I've actually had a VERY ignorant person argue that to me here on FC a few years ago. Saying "it's about money." Yet when I brought up our friend John Rockefeller and the money in politics associated with such modern day players (like the Koch brothers for example) he entirely dismissed my point.

I can already see that YOU t-dub completely dismissed herbivore21's very well-made points about the people who have an overriding profit motive as well as his other good points.

So I can see you're of the mentality that renewable clean energy is some massive global conspiracy to raise your taxes and have the UN put us all in hobbit homes.





However thankfully most of us here on FC and in this country are progressive on a variety of issues. Its just corruption and cronyism as to why we don't live in the country/world WE KNOW we can achieve.


Here's some food for thought for you t-dub and anyone else interested: did you know Exxon knew about climate change decades ago and covered it up?

Read more here

 

[Havelock Vetenari]

I walk a park in the evening that's 6 meter under sealevel as it is...
It might be too late already, but if we don't do anything to stop CO2 levels from rising much further, it certainly will be soon.
So if you think i'm going to take the 3% of expert's opinion against that of the other 97%, you are completely off your rocker indeed.
Want to be sceptical?
Fine by all means be :
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
And for a laugh see how many boxes you can tick here?
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

 

[Tranquility]

So you mean to tell all of us here; that all those multinational corporations that still exist today in the oil/natural gas and coal industries have NO invested interest in keeping the system as it is so they can keep burning pollution off into our air/atmosphere thereby making billions of dollars in the process....?

The reason people "keep burning" is not because of some secret multinational corporate plot, but because they like things. While it could be said capitalism is the most successful anti-poverty program ever, in reality, it was industrialization and the use of fossil fuels that most directly comports with the living standards improvement of people. The super bad-guy corporatists don't market their product as it sells itself. Everyone wants it. Air conditioning is cool. (As are plastics, medicines, water pumps, vaporizers etc.)

Also secretly it's those greedy scientists who've hatched an evil plot trying to do.....what exactly? Get grant money to do more research on the subject??

Yes. Even non-profit funding is a lot easier to get when you go to the same people year after year. Keep the same theory of whatever? The same people will like the cut of your jib and fund similarly. Change your theory? You generally have to go work at cultivating a whole new set of sponsors.

Seriously I've actually had a VERY ignorant person argue that to me here on FC a few years ago. Saying "it's about money." Yet when I brought up our friend John Rockefeller and the money in politics associated with such modern day players (like the Koch brothers for example) he entirely dismissed my point.

Rats. I've only been here a bit so it couldn't have been me. It really wasn't your avitar either--I suspect it was under a different registration. But, I am uncertain of the value of the claim the science is not about the money unless it is about the money from the other side.

So I can see you're of the mentality that renewable clean energy is some massive global conspiracy to raise your taxes and have the UN put us all in hobbit homes.

If all the purported solutions didn't include income redistribution to those in the world who missed out on the gains of the industrial revolution, there would be little benefit to any such conspiracy. That's not to say there is a conspiracy of people who have an agenda that can be furthered by the claim of climate change, it is to say there are political benefits to the claim even if there is no conspiracy.

However thankfully most of us here on FC and in this country are progressive on a variety of issues. Its just corruption and cronyism as to why we don't live in the country/world WE KNOW we can achieve.

Not without fossil fuels. I, for one, would love free electricity. Even with the huge focus on renewable technology and the near exponential growth of alternative to fuels capacity, we are no where near even fantasizing going fossil fuel free. At some point, reasonable people will recognize mitigation is more important that tilting against the windmill.

Here's some food for thought for you t-dub and anyone else interested: did you know Exxon knew about climate change decades ago and covered it up?

Read more here

I think everyone knew about climate change since the late 1800s at least. So, are you talking about some requirement private researchers must share with those who want it, or, the purported fraud some Attorneys General are trying to claim? If the former, perhaps a clarification of the requirement would be useful. If the later, we'll see. I suspect not as the probe seems political. But, you never know how such things work out.

 

[MarkSmith]

The reason people "keep burning" is not because of some secret multinational corporate plot, but because they like things. While it could be said capitalism is the most successful anti-poverty program ever, in reality, it was industrialization and the use of fossil fuels that most directly comports with the living standards improvement of people. The super bad-guy corporatists don't market their product as it sells itself. Everyone wants it. Air conditioning is cool. (As are plastics, medicines, water pumps, vaporizers etc.)

Yes. Even non-profit funding is a lot easier to get when you go to the same people year after year. Keep the same theory of whatever? The same people will like the cut of your jib and fund similarly. Change your theory? You generally have to go work at cultivating a whole new set of sponsors.

Rats. I've only been here a bit so it couldn't have been me. It really wasn't your avitar either--I suspect it was under a different registration. But, I am uncertain of the value of the claim the science is not about the money unless it is about the money from the other side.

If all the purported solutions didn't include income redistribution to those in the world who missed out on the gains of the industrial revolution, there would be little benefit to any such conspiracy. That's not to say there is a conspiracy of people who have an agenda that can be furthered by the claim of climate change, it is to say there are political benefits to the claim even if there is no conspiracy.

Not without fossil fuels. I, for one, would love free electricity. Even with the huge focus on renewable technology and the near exponential growth of alternative to fuels capacity, we are no where near even fantasizing going fossil fuel free. At some point, reasonable people will recognize mitigation is more important that tilting against the windmill.


I think everyone knew about climate change since the late 1800s at least. So, are you talking about some requirement private researchers must share with those who want it, or, the purported fraud some Attorneys General are trying to claim? If the former, perhaps a clarification of the requirement would be useful. If the later, we'll see. I suspect not as the probe seems political. But, you never know how such things work out.

WOW. Just look at your profile pic.

Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation. Seriously, in every response you just had you said NOTHING of actual substance to refute any of the facts I laid out.

I've seen you around FC before. You're definitely an older person (no discrimination against age, just an observation). Also you're not worth my time to be quite frank.

 

[Tranquility]

WOW. Just look at your profile pic.

Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation. Seriously, in every response you just had you said NOTHING of actual substance to refute any of the facts I laid out.

I've seen you around FC before. You're definitely an older person (no discrimination against age, just an observation). Also you're not worth my time to be quite frank.

The best part is the rolling emojis. They are a devastating bit of sarcasm that I simply cannot counter.

Point to you. Using pictures rather than responding in any meaningful way will take you far.

 

[HellsWindStaff]

It's true regarding EVERY issue. If you don't understand how money could affect the subject of climate change then I'm really not sure why anyone here even bothers with you.

You've made it painfully clear to everyone that you basically get your information from infowars.

That's not what he said. Infact his point was that money directly is impacting the subject of climate change. Unless I am reading the conversation wrong. I believe he is speaking about government policies in this instance having funding to their specific outcome (global warming). Unless I'm reading this wrong.

In any case, you are actually adding nothing to the conversation. You've attempted to make snipes at the opinions of people who disagree with you, saying he must read infowars as a way to discredit him. (or were you complimenting him??, although I find IW/AJ delivery to be annoying, they were more correct on a number of things this last year than rest of news) Insinuating it's thankful that the majority of people are more progressive, that comes across as his opinion is less. And also insinuating to ON that someone's profile pic has anything to do with their opinion on the situation. And insinuating ON well thought out points are just to be trivially dismissed and laughed at. And I'm sure all this will be discredited by having MAGA in my signature.

You've shown yourself a shining example of liberal progressiveness and are a literal caricature (You are why they lost). If people disagree with you, lets insult them and attack their character rather than discuss! You're in for a rough 8 years buddy.

Oh, and since Old Newbie is an older person, he's not worth your time? Again, surface level types of dismissals since you don't actually have a refute. Your post above literally refuses to address any of his points instead you simply namecall and dismiss.

So you mean to tell all of us here; that all those multinational corporations that still exist today in the oil/natural gas and coal industries have NO invested interest in keeping the system as it is so they can keep burning pollution off into our air/atmosphere thereby making billions of dollars in the process....?

He didn't say that, and to your point there is money on both sides of it. I work at an engineering firm. It's in my pockets best interest if they keep using gas turbines, I am biased to that regard. It's in my interest as well for them to look into greener types of energy like hydropower. So I don't care I get paid either way. But to your point yes people in oil/natural gas have a vested and the higher ups have an invested interest. You can say say literally the exact same thing about government and green energy.

 

[grokit]

We all seek to confirm our own bias, and there's many ways to do it.

Truthiness - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
First heard on The Colbert Report, a satirical mock news show on the Comedy Central television channel, truthiness refers to the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true. As Stephen Colbert put it, "I don't trust books".

 

[herbivore21]

Oh man this thread is becoming the inevitable disaster that we see in all political threads.

Also please guys, if you are not a professional research scientist or somehow involved in deliberations over funding then please don't speak to the processes of funding allocation for research since you cannot presume to speak for how this is done having no connection to/experience with the process. Research funding varies almost as much as the grant in question in some cases! Mountains of paperwork are involved. Usually grants are very competitive and @OldNewbie your description of this process is broadly inaccurate IME. Grants do not get handed out because someone 'likes the cut of somebody's jib' IME and I've filled out my share of applications/proposals and received my share of research funding!

I'm hesitant to type more in this thread since it is likely to become AVB. Maybe I'll make some errl out of the avb'd words afterwards - anyone got some iso?

 

[MarkSmith]

The best part is the rolling emojis. They are a devastating bit of sarcasm that I simply cannot counter.

Point to you. Using pictures rather than responding in any meaningful way will take you far.

"How the heck can you – a non-expert – judge who is right?

You probably are not a scientist, and that means you can’t independently evaluate any of the climate science claims. You didn’t do the data collection or the experiments yourself. You could try to assess the credibility of the scientists using your common sense and experience..."

ANYONE who is so scientifically illiterate as to say what you said in what I've quoted above isn't worth anyone's time here. I don't need to be a scientist to understand science.

Once again you've added nothing.

Anyone here can judge for themselves.

 

[grokit]

I fucking love this.

Please don't stop!

 

[MarkSmith]

That's not what he said. Infact his point was that money directly is impacting the subject of climate change. Unless I am reading the conversation wrong. I believe he is speaking about government policies in this instance having funding to their specific outcome (global warming). Unless I'm reading this wrong.

In any case, you are actually adding nothing to the conversation. You've attempted to make snipes at the opinions of people who disagree with you, saying he must read infowars as a way to discredit him. (or were you complimenting him??, although I find IW/AJ delivery to be annoying, they were more correct on a number of things this last year than rest of news) Insinuating it's thankful that the majority of people are more progressive, that comes across as his opinion is less. And also insinuating to ON that someone's profile pic has anything to do with their opinion on the situation. And insinuating ON well thought out points are just to be trivially dismissed and laughed at. And I'm sure all this will be discredited by having MAGA in my signature.

You've shown yourself a shining example of liberal progressiveness and are a literal caricature (You are why they lost). If people disagree with you, lets insult them and attack their character rather than discuss! You're in for a rough 8 years buddy.

Oh, and since Old Newbie is an older person, he's not worth your time? Again, surface level types of dismissals since you don't actually have a refute. Your post above literally refuses to address any of his points instead you simply namecall and dismiss.



He didn't say that, and to your point there is money on both sides of it. I work at an engineering firm. It's in my pockets best interest if they keep using gas turbines, I am biased to that regard. It's in my interest as well for them to look into greener types of energy like hydropower. So I don't care I get paid either way. But to your point yes people in oil/natural gas have a vested and the higher ups have an invested interest. You can say say literally the exact same thing about government and green energy.

What points did he make? Can you articulate them? After re-reading his post multiple times its still as vapid as your/his scientific literacy.

Comparing government/green energy initiatives with multinational corporations billion dollar interests is comically sad.

If you don't care either way then why jump back in the conversation?? Still don't know why anyone gives you the time out of their day.

You literally just said Alex Jones has been correct on a number of issues...WOW.



Anyone here who can read knows where the facts land and it's just sad to see such a pathetic knuckle-dragging mentality thrown around here. You would think a community like this would be much more well-rounded in terms of world issues.

Then again, everywhere you go you find people like this.


Ignorant as hell and desperate to have an opinion.

 

[grokit]

Did you guys hear that the brits just had to evacuate their antarctic research team, and shut down their halley research base because of cracks in the ice shelf? "There's no immediate danger."

Just like all the old fishing villages that are being abandoned/re-located, there's nothing to see here.

Certain political/socioeconomic issues, whether it's saving inundated coastal cities or giving health care to aging baby boomers, seem to really create a math problem for the conservative mindset.

Just like the unbridled wasteful spending by these same conservatives, when it comes to enabling the welfare state of our military-industrial complex. These fuckers need to get off the gravy train.

Trump may not get a chance to do that much damage to the environment, because (1st priority) building his wall will be a bigger problem that he thought it would be, and it may be his undoing

I'm sure president pence will figure it out

 

[Tranquility]

Oh man this thread is becoming the inevitable disaster that we see in all political threads.

Also please guys, if you are not a professional research scientist or somehow involved in deliberations over funding then please don't speak to the processes of funding allocation for research since you cannot presume to speak for how this is done having no connection to/experience with the process. Research funding varies almost as much as the grant in question in some cases! Mountains of paperwork are involved. Usually grants are very competitive and @OldNewbie your description of this process is broadly inaccurate IME. Grants do not get handed out because someone 'likes the cut of somebody's jib' IME and I've filled out my share of applications/proposals and received my share of research funding!

I'm hesitant to type more in this thread since it is likely to become AVB. Maybe I'll make some errl out of the avb'd words afterwards - anyone got some iso?

My wife has written more than a few grants for funding in mental health and I was the financial adviser to a doctor doing research on Autism and put together the financials for her study. Certainly, there is more than a whim on the part of a board member to grant or lose funding. But, just because there is a lot of paperwork involved does not mean there isn't a person(s) with an opinion at the end.

An opinion, at least in the world of mental health medical research of which I have some small knowledge. (No expert nor claims of expertise. Just some experience.) As to if a highly political issue like climate change brings in as much opinion as something like the screening and diagnosis of Autism, I have no idea.

 

[CarolKing]

Its great to get a good conversation going about climate change, fact or fiction. I'm not a scientist just wondering? The Earth's climate seems to be a changing.

Hopefully we can do this without being disrespectful. Some new members might need to look over the "be nice" rules - even some of the older members too. It would be nice if we could keep this thread open. I'm sure it gets frustrating for the Moderators.
Thanks in advance for all the BS you guys put up with.

 

[herbivore21]

My wife has written more than a few grants for funding in mental health and I was the financial adviser to a doctor doing research on Autism and put together the financials for her study. Certainly, there is more than a whim on the part of a board member to grant or lose funding. But, just because there is a lot of paperwork involved does not mean there isn't a person(s) with an opinion at the end.

An opinion, at least in the world of mental health medical research of which I have some small knowledge. (No expert nor claims of expertise. Just some experience.) As to if a highly political issue like climate change brings in as much opinion as something like the screening and diagnosis of Autism, I have no idea.

In fact, my point was precisely that there is IME never one single person with an opinion at the end of a public research funding decision. This is what I am talking about as a fundamental distinction in my experience of government and independent funding - where funding is handed out after large bureaucratic processes involving many different decision makers IME and where decisions cannot be left with a small group with a vested interest so easily - this is different to private scenarios where power relationships are generally far less equal between IME much smaller groups of decision makers, in some cases single individuals are the sole decision maker. There might be one person, or there might be a small handful. This is infinitely more likely to lead to conflicts since the checks and balances are fewer and the benefits of simply agreeing with the boss are greater and more crucial to sustaining your job.

I won't ask questions about the extent of your personal experiences any further (I respect your privacy and do not expect you to go into detail about yourself on this kind of forum), but it doesn't seem to me from what you've said like you've had any direct contact/experience with decision makers sufficient to be able to speak to exactly who was making the decisions and what takes place in this process. Whereas I have many times had direct contact and experiences with such decision making bodies and still do regularly in my day-to-day. I should highlight things may vary between jurisdictions depending on the source of the grant and local policy of course, but IME it is generally as I say above.

I don't know of any fellow scientists who think process is generally more sound in private, rather than public research. I have known many who have gone to private for purely financial reasons - none of us can fault them even if my scientific peers and I are saddened by this trend. Unfortunately independent research doesn't offer such career prospects as it used to and funding for it is frequently more competitive with much less money to compete for.

 

[grokit]

One side deviates ----->
the "other side" responds ----->
the truth is lost, and it doesn't matter anymore.

Might as well get a chuckle out of it

 

[lwien]

Man, and here I got my hands slapped for posting up a Twilight Zone clip and this thread is devolving as quickly as that one would have. The problem was is that while I thought that clip was funny in the context that I put it in ( and was the sole reason that I posted it), someone else thought it was very unfunny and took offense to it.

And therein lies the geography of our current state affairs. Doesn't matter if we're talking politics, climate change, planned parenthood, immigration, globalization, hacking, the military complex, etc etc. We're so fucking divided on these issues that even an attempt at humor can be taken as an insult and if someone has a perspective that may be different than someone else's, it seems to give permission for that someone to go on a personal attack.

The fact is, is that the divide is so deep that it can literally be said that we live in two different realities. I've been living on this planet for over 72 years and I can honestly say that I've never experienced anything like this before.

As it's been said before, this is a vaporizer forum, not a politics forum, but with that said, I've always viewed FC as a bit more than that. Maybe it's because I've been here for so long but I view it as family also, but this has gone beyond being just dysfunctional. It's gone to..........we can't discuss any topics that "may" be considered controversial, and I'm not saying that because of what the mods have stated but rather just stating what is a reality.

Threads like this SHOULD get shut down.

Sad, really. If all I could do here was discuss vaporizers, I would have bailed a long time ago. It really is too bad that things have devolved like it has. I'm not quite sure if I should stay active here or not. Think I'll just go dark for awhile.......

 

[grokit]

I've been living on this planet for over 72 years and I can honestly say that I've never experienced anything like this before.

Then you just haven't been around long enough. ~Double that and you have our "civil" war. Wars are never really won, because defeated people never forget what happened to them, and the cycle continues.

Threads like this SHOULD get shut down.

Maybe people should just lighten up, and enjoy these insane debates while we can still have them.

When two sides of any argument are this polarized, the truth usually lies somewhere in between.