AGW Debate: The bottom line

Discussion in 'Environment' started by skookerasbil, Oct 24, 2011.

  1. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,262
    Thanks Received:
    2,916
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,249
    Cult of Global Warming Is Losing Influence
    by Michael Barone
    Oct 24, 2011


    Religious faith is a source of strength in many people's lives. But religious faith when taken too far can prove ludicrous -- or disastrous.

    On Oct. 22, 1844, thousand of Millerites, having sold all their possessions, climbed to the top of hills in Upstate New York to await the return of Jesus and the end of the world. They suffered "the great disappointment" when it didn't happen.

    In 1212, or so the legends go, thousands of Children's Crusaders set off from France and Germany expecting the sea to part so they could march peaceably and convert Muslims in the Holy Land. It didn't, and many were shipwrecked or sold into slavery.

    In 1898, the cavalrymen of the Madhi, ruler of Sudan for 13 years, went into the Battle of Omdurman armed with swords, believing that they were impervious to bullets. They weren't, and they were mowed down by British Maxim guns.

    A similar but more peaceable fate is befalling believers in what I think can be called the religion of the global warming alarmists.

    They have an unshakeable faith that manmade carbon emissions will produce a hotter climate, causing multiple natural disasters. Their insistence that we can be absolutely certain this will come to pass is based not on science -- which is never fully settled, witness the recent experiments that may undermine Albert Einstein's theory of relativity -- but on something very much like religious faith.

    All the trappings of religion are there. Original sin: Mankind is responsible for these prophesied disasters, especially those slobs who live on suburban cul-de-sacs and drive their SUVs to strip malls and tacky chain restaurants.

    The need for atonement and repentance: We must impose a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, which will increase the cost of everything and stunt economic growth.

    Ritual, from the annual Earth Day to weekly recycling.

    Indulgences, like those Martin Luther railed against: private jet-fliers like Al Gore and sitcom heiress Laurie David can buy carbon offsets to compensate for their carbon-emitting sins.

    Corporate elitists, like General Electric's Jeff Immelt, profess to share this faith, just as cynical Venetian merchants and prim Victorian bankers gave lip service to the religious enthusiasms of their days. Bad for business not to. And if you're clever, you can figure out how to make money off it.

    Believers in this religion have flocked to conferences in Rio de Janeiro, Kyoto and Copenhagen, just as Catholic bishops flocked to councils in Constance, Ferrara and Trent, to codiBut like the Millerites, the global warming clergy has preached apocalyptic doom -- and is now facing an increasingly skeptical public. The idea that we can be so completely certain of climate change 70 to 90 years hence that we must inflict serious economic damage on ourselves in the meantime seems increasingly absurd.

    If carbon emissions were the only thing affecting climate, the global-warming alarmists would be right. But it's obvious that climate is affected by many things, many not yet fully understood, and implausible that SUVs will affect it more than variations in the enormous energy produced by the sun.

    Skepticism has been increased by the actions of believers. Passage of the House cap-and-trade bill in June 2009 focused politicians and voters on the costs of global-warming religion. And disclosure of the Climategate emails in November 2009 showed how the clerisy was willing to distort evidence and suppress dissenting views in the interest of propagation of the faith.


    But like the Millerites, the global warming clergy has preached apocalyptic doom -- and is now facing an increasingly skeptical public. The idea that we can be so completely certain of climate change 70 to 90 years hence that we must inflict serious economic damage on ourselves in the meantime seems increasingly absurd.

    If carbon emissions were the only thing affecting climate, the global-warming alarmists would be right. But it's obvious that climate is affected by many things, many not yet fully understood, and implausible that SUVs will affect it more than variations in the enormous energy produced by the sun.

    Skepticism has been increased by the actions of believers. Passage of the House cap-and-trade bill in June 2009 focused politicians and voters on the costs of global-warming religion. And disclosure of the Climategate emails in November 2009 showed how the clerisy was willing to distort evidence and suppress dissenting views in the interest of propagation of the faith.

    We have seen how the United Nations agency whose authority we are supposed to respect took an item from an environmental activist group predicting that the Himalayan glaciers would melt in 2350 and predicted that the melting would take place in 2035. No sensible society would stake its economic future on the word of folks capable of such an error.

    In recent years, we have seen how negative to 2 percent growth hurts many, many people, as compared to what happens with 3 to 7 percent growth. So we're much less willing to adopt policies that will slow down growth not just for a few years but for the indefinite future.

    Media, university and corporate elites still profess belief in global warming alarmism, but moves toward policies limiting carbon emissions have fizzled out, here and abroad. It looks like we'll dodge the fate of the Millerites, the children's crusaders and the Mahdi's cavalrymen.

    Cult of Global Warming Is Losing Influence - Page 2 - Michael Barone - Townhall Conservative








    For those new forum members looking for some objective truth........deniers vs. alarmists..........consider...........

    Since 2008, there has been virtually zero green legislation passed in the US Congress ( reducing carbon emissions). Ask yourselves......why is that?

    If there were such a "consensus" on the science..........why is it that respresentatives phones arent ringing off the hook demanding carbon reduction legislation? Then consider the statement this past summer from the United Nations......that going green will cost $71,000,000,000,000.00 ( thats trilllion :coffee:).



    The religion..................is losing!!!!



    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,262
    Thanks Received:
    2,916
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,249
    Best start those ark projects s0ns if you havent already started...............


    Heres is a prototype of the SS Rolling Thunder:2up::boobies::boobies::boobies:


    [​IMG]
     
  3. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,262
    Thanks Received:
    2,916
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,249
    [​IMG]
     
  4. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,262
    Thanks Received:
    2,916
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,249
    The religion never wants anything to do with the reality threads.............:bye1:
     
  5. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    ordinary people may not be good at science but they can tell bullshit when they smell it. and there have been a lot of bad aromas coming from climate science lately
     
  6. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,262
    Thanks Received:
    2,916
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,249

    and no BS Ian.......I said well over 10 years ago that all this global warming crap would be seen someday as a hoax. I will submit, a highly clever hoax.........actually, fcukking brilliant when you think about it. Take something like weather which is infinately variable and fashion it to appear as if only one variable controls it. Fcukking brilliant..........and especially when you think about how impressionable many people can be.

    ANyway.........report today on DRUDGE about the states being 4 trillion in debt. Even if there were only one variable and everybody agreed, it wouldnt matter. Green energy demands it be floated upon debt. We cant take on anymore. Case closed. Thats what the k00ks dont get.

    Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, I did sort of follow the lead of what Mr Limbaugh was saying even 15 years ago..............

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2011
  7. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,532
    Thanks Received:
    5,421
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,359
    As the rate of weather related disasters, and the effects on agriculture, continue to increase, people will finally see the denielist propaganda for what it is. This is the same arguement that Limpbaugh and the rest were using before 2000, stating that there was no warming at all. Went through all kinds of contortions to prove the point. Then, when it became apparent to all that the world was getting warming, changed their statement to, "But we aren't doing it". And denied ever having stated previously that it wasn't warming.

    When enough hits the fan, there wil be a pretty significant political blowback on this. A blowback that will make the OWS and Teabaggers look like puny movements. Unfortunately, it will accomplish nothing, for the damage will have been done at that point. So, rejoice in your victory. You have won. We will make the grand experiment. We will find out where those tipping points are, and whether we can sustain even a portion of the 7 billion people presently on the plant, during and adrupt change of climate.
     
  8. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,262
    Thanks Received:
    2,916
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,249

    Could happen I guess Ray........but nobody knows for sure. For all intents and purposes, it is still speculation. There are simply too many other variables to just chalk it up to things man-made.
    Practically speaking. What are we to do?
    For example........millions of tons of frieght are moved every day on US Railroads. Companies like CSX, Norfolk Southern, NNSF, Union Pacific........we dont eat without them haulling the loads with diesel engines. Tens and thousands of them. Shit doesnt move without them.........and there is no alternative for now. The techonlogy is not there.......not at a price to provide enough incentive for these railroad companies to stay in business. So what do they do? Scrap the units and have their employees pull the loads by hand?

    We are talking hundreds of billions of dollars here........and over time, in the trillions. Even if we were near 100% sure warming was ALL man-made, there is zero evidence even a significant drop in carbon emissions would have a substantial impact..........if any. The world still has to work.

    Its going to take ALOT more than an extended heat wave in Texas in the summer to make ANY impact. And that means..............ALOT. Im talking mega events in a short space of time. Weather anomolies here and there have happened since the beginning of time...........higher in frequency some years and lower in frequency some years.


    Call me selfish. I support two kids. I call it as I see it. I cant afford paying double for my electric bill ( a reality in the northeast if Cap and Trade had passed ). My duty is to see to it that I am preparing for the next stage of my kids life, thus, I cannot in good conscience back a movement that will effectively take any and all opportunity away from my kids for the balance of their lives. To persue green energy in a manner is is being advocated by environmentalists means destruction of the capitalistic system. So what do I say 30 years from now when in my last days, my kids are living just above the poverty line? "Well kids.....you see, the weather seemed to be getting worse and thought the world would maybe end.....so we thought we did what we had to do!!".

    Perhaps some can back some movements out of convenience. I simply dont have that. I have one goal in life at this point......help my kids get to the next chapter in life. If I cant do that........my life is a failure.


    The environmental movement has become largely marginalized due to economic realities that just make this debate completely impractical anymore. And I'll be much closer to being in the box before any of that changes to any significant degree.....if ever. If government would get the fcukk out of the way, the chances of major technological breakthroughs helping the cause of the environmentalists would be FAR, FAR, FAR more likely. The fact that environmentalists turn to government for ALL answers is a most profound irony.


    It is what it is.............
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2011
  9. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    Dude! stop being serious, you're freaking me out
     
  10. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,262
    Thanks Received:
    2,916
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,249

    LOL.......it happens sometimes!!! For the most part though Ian.......30 years now, Ive learned that the only way to deal with liberals in debate is to just try to out absurd them. You can never win a debate with people who never.........and I mean never.........can answer the questions, 1) At what cost? and 2) As compared to what?. When people dont factor that at all into their thinking, reasonable discussion is impossible................absurd, if you will. So you just out-absurd them............not for the purpose of changing their minds, of course, but to highlight the level of absurd to those not yet conforming with any particular ideology.
     

Share This Page