Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're a liar and a fool
I keep hearing talk about a "Conspiracy" to instill Global Warming into the world's Weltanschauung and consciousness. A conspiracy by who? And for what purpose? Cui Bono? A conspiracy of this scope would have to involve thousands of Atmospheric Scientists from all around the world. Phony computer programs would have to be written and installed on dozens of mainframes from NOAA to European weather agencies to Universities around the Globe. The costs of such a conspiracy would be massive. The number of scientists from every discipline required for it to be successful would be enormous. This is where Conspiracy Theories always break down for me. You have more than one person holding a "secret" and in a very short time it's not a secret any more.
I haven't researched Global Warming to any extent. I do read a lot about science though and put a lot of faith in it's truthfullness. To my knowledge no Scientist has ever held the Holy Grail of science, the Nobel Prize, by fudging his results. Testable, provable theories are at the heart of Science. Experimental result that are flawed are usually identified pretty quickly by peer review. Remember OPERA's faster than light Neutrinos?
Being an interested bystander, the overwhelming evidence that a great majority of the world's scientists agree with Global Warming to one degree or another, convinces me to accept their version.
And if they're right the environment may be saved. If they're wrong the environment may benefit from less pollution anyway.
The "fable" of Global Warming is based on some science that correctly identifies CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The warming due to CO2 increases ALONE are insufficient to trigger a bigger enough crisis. So GWarming theory INVENTS a lot of Magic Multipliers that essentially say that CO2 is only the TRIGGER for the apocalyptic future doom. That the planet atmos. is so fragile -- that a change of 1 or 2 degC will set off RUNAWAY WARMING due to positive feedbacks and that's where they get the script for the horror film. They turn 1 or 2 degC into 4 or even 8degC with magic and guessing and modeling. No historical empirical evidence to suggest that the Planet has a suicide wish and will destroy all life because SOMETHING raised the surface temperature by a degree or two...
Why is it that deniers such as yourself so frequently talk about paleoclimatic data from the geological history of the Earth rather than that of the history of human culture?
The Mesopotamian city-state of Ur was founded less than half way to the very first hash mark on your graphic.
Why is it that deniers such as yourself so frequently talk about paleoclimatic data from the geological history of the Earth rather than that of the history of human culture?
Because the earth could give a flying F about human culture.
And 22C was the mean temperature just prior to the beginning of the ice age that the earth is presently in. It isn't necessary to go back to the dim recesses of earth's beginnings to find temperatures much higher than they are at present...all one need to do is look back to the time just before the present ice age and one finds temps about 8 degrees warmer than the present....which, by the way tidily puts the lie to wacko claims of run away global warming and tipping points which are a couple of degrees warmer than the present.
Since that is the temperature the climate invariably reaches after exiting ice age after ice age after ice age, why is it that you deniers think something different is happening now than has happened every other time the earth has exited an ice age?
The Mesopotamian city-state of Ur was founded less than half way to the very first hash mark on your graphic.
Man and his activities are irrelevant to the global climate.
When the global mean temperature goes up past 25C, let me know, then, and only then will there be something unusual going on, and even then not unprecedented.
I think you meant to say that it couldn't give a fuck and my response is that no one ever said it did. The blatantly obvious point was that the human species and particularly, human culture, has developed under the range of conditions present during the previous few thousand years (500,000 if you want to talk about homo sapiens as a species). What might be normal over the planet's history should not be a comfort to us if it would kill us all outright.
Except that, as always, you have ignored the pace of current temperature change compared to the rate at which it changed in the past. And, again, there was no human culture back then, so what the onset or termination of the past ice age might have done to current human infrastructure is an unknown - and something you choose to ignore completely.
Current warming is not part of the process of exiting the most recent glaciation.
That in the face of the numerous temperature diagrams displaying the unprecedented warming acceleration since the Industrial Revolution, you continue to claim that it is, is just further proof that you are a paragon of anti-science.
You've got that turned around. The global climate is quite relevant to man and his activities.
Were that to happen in what would have been our lifetimes, there'd be no point in telling you anything as we'd all be long dead. I, for one, find that point entirely relevant.
me something, are you really this stupid or is it that your decision to stick with an indefensible position forces you to make ridiculously bad arguments like these?
I keep hearing talk about a "Conspiracy" to instill Global Warming into the world's Weltanschauung and consciousness. A conspiracy by who? And for what purpose? Cui Bono? A conspiracy of this scope would have to involve thousands of Atmospheric Scientists from all around the world. Phony computer programs would have to be written and installed on dozens of mainframes from NOAA to European weather agencies to Universities around the Globe. The costs of such a conspiracy would be massive. The number of scientists from every discipline required for it to be successful would be enormous. This is where Conspiracy Theories always break down for me. You have more than one person holding a "secret" and in a very short time it's not a secret any more.
I haven't researched Global Warming to any extent. I do read a lot about science though and put a lot of faith in it's truthfullness. To my knowledge no Scientist has ever held the Holy Grail of science, the Nobel Prize, by fudging his results. Testable, provable theories are at the heart of Science. Experimental result that are flawed are usually identified pretty quickly by peer review. Remember OPERA's faster than light Neutrinos?
Being an interested bystander, the overwhelming evidence that a great majority of the world's scientists agree with Global Warming to one degree or another, convinces me to accept their version.
And if they're right the environment may be saved. If they're wrong the environment may benefit from less pollution anyway.
Lemme take an honest whack at your questions. The eco-movement has been quite successful. THey face a problem of diminishing returns on the pollution problem in ADVANCED and WESTERN countries. They have little leverage over what happens in places like China or the Congo. AND THEY HATE FOSSIL FUELS.. With their deepest passion.
Unfortunately for them -- they also hate nuclear power, Large hydro and ALL the major sources of energy in the 21st century.. So there is no cogent argument for eradicting ALL of these -- especially when they offer no viable alternatives for ADVANCED WESTERN societies. So the opportunity to formulate a GLOBAL crisis and at the same time give them control in the western democracies of energy policy is CO2 regulation. Or as they say now "carbon" which is PURPOSEFULLY ambigious and nebulous so as to PURPOSELY CONFUSE the CO2 global warming issue with REAL --- honest to God pollution.. Just as you did in your last line. Kerry has repeatedly said what you said there. If we are wrong about GW -- the worst thing that will happen is the enviro will be cleaner.
All that PRESUMES that there ARE viable alternatives. There are none. So -- it's worth it to Leftist movements all over the world to hobble the advanced economies, exert economic Imperialism over dirt poor developing nations with an exaggerated crisis of Global proportions. The lies of Al Gore, the revelations of the ClimateGate emails, the tensions about the UN IPCC "process" and the utterly FAILED predictions of this juvenile science are all testimony to the POLITICAL motives behind this farce..
The "fable" of Global Warming is based on some science that correctly identifies CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The warming due to CO2 increases ALONE are insufficient to trigger a bigger enough crisis. So GWarming theory INVENTS a lot of Magic Multipliers that essentially say that CO2 is only the TRIGGER for the apocalyptic future doom. That the planet atmos. is so fragile -- that a change of 1 or 2 degC will set off RUNAWAY WARMING due to positive feedbacks and that's where they get the script for the horror film. They turn 1 or 2 degC into 4 or even 8degC with magic and guessing and modeling. No historical empirical evidence to suggest that the Planet has a suicide wish and will destroy all life because SOMETHING raised the surface temperature by a degree or two...
I keep hearing talk about a "Conspiracy" to instill Global Warming into the world's Weltanschauung and consciousness. A conspiracy by who? And for what purpose? Cui Bono? A conspiracy of this scope would have to involve thousands of Atmospheric Scientists from all around the world. Phony computer programs would have to be written and installed on dozens of mainframes from NOAA to European weather agencies to Universities around the Globe. The costs of such a conspiracy would be massive. The number of scientists from every discipline required for it to be successful would be enormous. This is where Conspiracy Theories always break down for me. You have more than one person holding a "secret" and in a very short time it's not a secret any more.
I haven't researched Global Warming to any extent. I do read a lot about science though and put a lot of faith in it's truthfullness. To my knowledge no Scientist has ever held the Holy Grail of science, the Nobel Prize, by fudging his results. Testable, provable theories are at the heart of Science. Experimental result that are flawed are usually identified pretty quickly by peer review. Remember OPERA's faster than light Neutrinos?
Being an interested bystander, the overwhelming evidence that a great majority of the world's scientists agree with Global Warming to one degree or another, convinces me to accept their version.
And if they're right the environment may be saved. If they're wrong the environment may benefit from less pollution anyway.
Lemme take an honest whack at your questions. The eco-movement has been quite successful. THey face a problem of diminishing returns on the pollution problem in ADVANCED and WESTERN countries. They have little leverage over what happens in places like China or the Congo. AND THEY HATE FOSSIL FUELS.. With their deepest passion.
Unfortunately for them -- they also hate nuclear power, Large hydro and ALL the major sources of energy in the 21st century.. So there is no cogent argument for eradicting ALL of these -- especially when they offer no viable alternatives for ADVANCED WESTERN societies. So the opportunity to formulate a GLOBAL crisis and at the same time give them control in the western democracies of energy policy is CO2 regulation. Or as they say now "carbon" which is PURPOSEFULLY ambigious and nebulous so as to PURPOSELY CONFUSE the CO2 global warming issue with REAL --- honest to God pollution.. Just as you did in your last line. Kerry has repeatedly said what you said there. If we are wrong about GW -- the worst thing that will happen is the enviro will be cleaner.
All that PRESUMES that there ARE viable alternatives. There are none. So -- it's worth it to Leftist movements all over the world to hobble the advanced economies, exert economic Imperialism over dirt poor developing nations with an exaggerated crisis of Global proportions. The lies of Al Gore, the revelations of the ClimateGate emails, the tensions about the UN IPCC "process" and the utterly FAILED predictions of this juvenile science are all testimony to the POLITICAL motives behind this farce..
The "fable" of Global Warming is based on some science that correctly identifies CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The warming due to CO2 increases ALONE are insufficient to trigger a bigger enough crisis. So GWarming theory INVENTS a lot of Magic Multipliers that essentially say that CO2 is only the TRIGGER for the apocalyptic future doom. That the planet atmos. is so fragile -- that a change of 1 or 2 degC will set off RUNAWAY WARMING due to positive feedbacks and that's where they get the script for the horror film. They turn 1 or 2 degC into 4 or even 8degC with magic and guessing and modeling. No historical empirical evidence to suggest that the Planet has a suicide wish and will destroy all life because SOMETHING raised the surface temperature by a degree or two...
and learned to love greenhouse gasses?
Your answer to my question, Cui Bono? seems to be the "Leftists" in the "eco-movement". You can't mean the whole eco-movement. Obviously there are people from all over the world and all across the political spectrum engaged in thousands of groups and projects to save or improve ecologies in every part of the globe. And from my observation extreme leftists are marginalized in all the Western Democracies. Or are you saying that it's the moderate Left driving this conspiracy?
Either way I still can't buy it. I'll quote myself here, "A conspiracy of this scope would have to involve thousands of Atmospheric Scientists from all around the world. Phony computer programs would have to be written and installed on dozens of mainframes from NOAA to European weather agencies to Universities around the Globe." And those are just a couple of the components that would have to be involved for this conspiracy to garner the wide-ranging support it has. I've read 9/11 Conspiracy Theories with more plausible scenarios than this.
You say, "All that PRESUMES that there ARE viable alternatives. There are none." I've seen Technology do a lot of "miraculous" things in the last 50 years. I don't doubt for one second it can overcome whatever problems there are in providing alternative power sources. Just look at the advances in electric cars. And there are now solar panels that power spacecraft hundreds of millions further away from the Sun than the Earth is. Solar is the ultimate source of hydro power and fossil fuels anyway, all they have to do is find a more direct route to the source.
I'm sorry, but for me, without evidence to the contrary that amounts to more than anti-Leftist rhetoric, "The fable of Global Warming" iis still a fable constructed by a broad range of anti-science far right wing conspiracy theorists with more "faith" than proof.
I remember well when "they" tried to convince us that Lead in gasoline was perfectly harmless, as was tobacco. And flourine in the water supply was a Communist conspiracy.
FlaCalTenn said:Lemme take an honest whack at your questions.
FlaCalTenn said:The eco-movement has been quite successful.
FlaCalTenn said:THey face a problem of diminishing returns on the pollution problem in ADVANCED and WESTERN countries. They have little leverage over what happens in places like China or the Congo. AND THEY HATE FOSSIL FUELS.. With their deepest passion.
FlaCalTenn said:Unfortunately for them -- they also hate nuclear power, Large hydro and ALL the major sources of energy in the 21st century.. So there is no cogent argument for eradicting ALL of these -- especially when they offer no viable alternatives for ADVANCED WESTERN societies.
FlaCalTenn said:So the opportunity to formulate a GLOBAL crisis and at the same time give them control in the western democracies of energy policy is CO2 regulation. Or as they say now "carbon" which is PURPOSEFULLY ambigious and nebulous so as to PURPOSELY CONFUSE the CO2 global warming issue with REAL --- honest to God pollution.. Just as you did in your last line. Kerry has repeatedly said what you said there. If we are wrong about GW -- the worst thing that will happen is the enviro will be cleaner.
FlaCalTenn said:All that PRESUMES that there ARE viable alternatives. There are none.
FlaCalTenn said:So -- it's worth it to Leftist movements all over the world to hobble the advanced economies, exert economic Imperialism over dirt poor developing nations with an exaggerated crisis of Global proportions. The lies of Al Gore, the revelations of the ClimateGate emails, the tensions about the UN IPCC "process" and the utterly FAILED predictions of this juvenile science are all testimony to the POLITICAL motives behind this farce..
FlaCalTenn said:The "fable" of Global Warming is based on some science that correctly identifies CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
FlaCalTenn said:The warming due to CO2 increases ALONE are insufficient to trigger a bigger enough crisis. So GWarming theory INVENTS a lot of Magic Multipliers that essentially say that CO2 is only the TRIGGER for the apocalyptic future doom.
FlaCalTenn said:That the planet atmos. is so fragile -- that a change of 1 or 2 degC will set off RUNAWAY WARMING due to positive feedbacks and that's where they get the script for the horror film.
FlaCalTenn said:They turn 1 or 2 degC into 4 or even 8degC with magic and guessing and modeling.
FlaCalTenn said:No historical empirical evidence to suggest that the Planet has a suicide wish and will destroy all life because SOMETHING raised the surface temperature by a degree or two...
FlaCalTenn said:Of course it's the entire institutionalized Eco movement that HATES fossil fuels. And for most part big hydro and nuclear. There may be some pro-nuclear eco leaders and orgs, but not many. EVEN THO -- nuclear is the most VIABLE solution to cutting CO2 emissions at the moment. Seems that the eco-left is more afraid of nuclear than they are of Global warming.*
FlaCalTenn said:Moderate --- Extreme Left? I'm not qualified to say. What is a Barbara Boxer or Al Waxman? What is Al Gore? What is the political leaning of WWF or Greenpeace or more importantly the ring-masters at the UN where this GLOBAL crisis is managed? I DO KNOW that the political leaning of Academic Science and I am intimately familiar with the incestuest, primadonna leftist tendencies there.**
FlaCalTenn said:Powering a spacecraft is NOTHING LIKE supplying the daily Grid demand. Spacecraft are designed with solar technologies that are not commercially feasible and the functions of spacecraft are to be IDLE most of the time. Communications for example from deep space are sent back SLOWER than your old 9600 baud modem to save power.*
FlaCalTenn said:Solar is a 6 hour per day power PEAKER technology -- not an alternative to any of our reliable 24/7/365 sources that the eco-left abhor.
FlaCalTenn said:And wind is a complete waste of money for powering the ER of a hospital.
FlaCalTenn said:The "faith" is fully implemented in the Warmer belief that the Earth will destroy itself if a 1 or 2 degC trigger in temperature rise is experienced.
FlaCalTenn said:That's what you have to BELIEVE in order to support the concept that we will see 4 or 8 degC rise before we reach 560ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere..
FlaCalTenn said:And the Church of Global Warming REQUIRES belief that we are NOW SEEING the effects of 0.5degC rise in global surface temperature in your lifetime. They are blaming every "extreme weather event" on that miniscule change. Like the crowds that gather when the Virgin Mary appears on the side of a building in Rio... Blaming any hurricane that hits the US on Global Warming or the death of 19 firefighters in Arizona on the same Gaian divine powers.
FlaCalTenn said:Lemme take an honest whack at your questions.
Whack, yes. Honest, most definitely NOT.
FlaCalTenn said:The eco-movement has been quite successful.
They HAVE ? ? ?
REALLY ? ? ?
Gosh, our CO2 emissions are down to almost nothing. And look how that warming has stopped dead in its tracks!
noaa quietly decided that 2012 was not the hottest on record after all...
Globaloney: NOAA Quietly Changes Warmest Year Back to 1936 Without Comment | Wizbang
This isnt just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately. In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why.
Radical whackoloons like Crick are EXTREMELY rare and dangerous. We are blessed with his Version2.0 life on USMB. Here is a prime example of a believer so damaged and brainwashed that he equates the ENTIRE HISTORY and current state of Enviro affairs with a trace atmospheric gas. No concept or cares or recognition of any other enviro issues that do not mention his sole fixation on CO2.. Their hijacking of the enviro movement is more dangerous than the powers of cow farts or beer fizz..
Do not attempt to reprogram this droid. His kind is numbered.. And we have a DUTY to preserve biodiversity and survival of his gene pool.. Because it represents a warning to society of how batshit crazy these religious zealots truly are...
Radical whackoloons like Crick are EXTREMELY rare and dangerous. We are blessed with his Version2.0 life on USMB. Here is a prime example of a believer so damaged and brainwashed that he equates the ENTIRE HISTORY and current state of Enviro affairs with a trace atmospheric gas. No concept or cares or recognition of any other enviro issues that do not mention his sole fixation on CO2.. Their hijacking of the enviro movement is more dangerous than the powers of cow farts or beer fizz..
Do not attempt to reprogram this droid. His kind is numbered.. And we have a DUTY to preserve biodiversity and survival of his gene pool.. Because it represents a warning to society of how batshit crazy these religious zealots truly are...
Didn't like getting that many corrections in one post, did you.
Corrections. Yes. That's what I call them. They are given in response to errors.
Here's one more: Mischaracterizing your opponents as you've been doing is not a sign of confidence. Try to keep in mind that they're the ones with mainstream science on their side and you're not.