Global Warming (Assuming It's Happening) is a Blessing From God

[ding]

He can't ... he complains about the algebra ... then can't show us ...

Algebra says 2+2=4 ...IRS regulations says 2+2=4 ... a good accountant can make 2+2 equal to anything we need it to equal ... like a $3,671,000 refundable tax credit? ... go ahead and look through The Donald's tax returns ... learn something new ...

I know. I don't think even he knows what his point is.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Probably because there are too many variables. Just know this... it would be unusual if a thinning of the heard never occurred.

It will be a test to see if we can avoid the St. Matthew's Island phenomenon. Of course the reindeer did not have lying economists and nuclear weapons.

What wiped out St. Matthew Island's reindeer?

Scientists just looked back at what may have killed St. Matthew's reindeer herd and found some interesting possibilities.

www.adn.com

 

[sparky]

It will be a test to see if we can avoid the St. Matthew's Island phenomenon. Of course the reindeer did not have lying economists and nuclear weapons.

What wiped out St. Matthew Island's reindeer?

Scientists just looked back at what may have killed St. Matthew's reindeer herd and found some interesting possibilities.

www.adn.com

would that serve as metaphor Psikey?

~S~

 

[ding]

would that serve as metaphor Psikey?

~S~

I think he worries about nothing too much.

 

[psikeyhackr]

would that serve as metaphor Psikey?

~S~

Yeah, unfortunately the human situation is way more complicated. Too many players interacting in too many ways and the climate problem on top of that.

 

[sparky]

I've been a peripheral player for the green machine since Reagan was in office. Back then it was just a bunch of save the planet hippees, these days it's a politicized industry

Their fav buzzword is 'sustainable' ......this is sustainable....that's sustainable ....blah blah blah sustainable!

After a while, one gets the impression the only unsustainable element in the whole green machine equation is us!

~S~

 

[ReinyDays]

Yeah, unfortunately the human situation is way more complicated. Too many players interacting in too many ways and the climate problem on top of that.

You can certainly set the climate problem aside ... any changes will be centuries in the future ... and require sophisticated expensive precision scientific instruments to measure ... the altimeter in your LearJet will still work ...

Global warming does bring more rain ... but no where close to what we need ... and for the Love of God, stop getting your science news from the National Enquirer ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They don't say much about Net Domestic Product do they? And that is just the depreciation of capital goods.

Because you're the only one who figured it out.

I'm sure, after your death, you'll be recognized for the massive genius you were.

 

[ReinyDays]

Because you're the only one who figured it out.

I'm sure, after your death, you'll be recognized for the massive genius you were.

Hell no ... I'm typing this up myself and publishing ... that Nobel Prize for Economics is MINE, baby MINE !!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hell no ... I'm typing this up myself and publishing ... that Nobel Prize for Economics is MINE, baby MINE !!!

You'll have my vote!

 

[psikeyhackr]

Because you're the only one who figured it out.

I'm sure, after your death, you'll be recognized for the massive genius you were.

I can believe more than 50% of economists are that stupid. I cannot believe that 100% of economists are that stupid. Net National Product, which is what it was called back then, somehow got skipped when I took economics in college. But when I later found it reading Samuelson's Economics it only rated half of a page in a 400 page book.

We are steered into thinking about economics in certain ways. Is mandatory accounting/finance in the schools really a difficult idea?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can believe more than 50% of economists are that stupid. I cannot believe that 100% of economists are that stupid. Net National Product, which is what it was called back then, somehow got skipped when I took economics in college. But when I later found it reading Samuelson's Economics it only rated half of a page in a 400 page book.

We are steered into thinking about economics in certain ways. Is mandatory accounting/finance in the schools really a difficult idea?

I can believe more than 50% of economists are that stupid.

Probably 80%.

You'll make millions.

 

[Crick]

Is the NDP a blessing from god or just overheated analysis...

 

[ReinyDays]

I can believe more than 50% of economists are that stupid. I cannot believe that 100% of economists are that stupid. Net National Product, which is what it was called back then, somehow got skipped when I took economics in college. But when I later found it reading Samuelson's Economics it only rated half of a page in a 400 page book.

We are steered into thinking about economics in certain ways. Is mandatory accounting/finance in the schools really a difficult idea?

Still waiting to see your algebra ... let's see what your economics class in college taught you ... I remember that class, it was required for girls ... I thought it was just about baking cookies or douching without spilling ...

What does NDP do for us that GDP doesn't ... if you've been to college, then you should be able to use an epsilon/delta proof to confirm your claims here ... the algebra we've been talking about ...

 

[Crick]

My being a Catholic helps me assume a positive outlook on pretty much everything.

Good to hear. Not true, but good to hear.

And so it is with global warming.

Global warming is catholic and so assumes a positive outlook on pretty much everything?

Climate change is nothing outside the normal cycles the earth has experienced for millennia.

I'm afraid that is both irrelevant and inaccurate. The rate of change of both CO2 and temperature that have taken place since the start of the Industrial Revolution are unprecedented in several million years. And, of course, the Earth has never before experienced the combustion of billions of tons of fossil fuels.

But I am very excited to think we might be exiting an ice and and earth is warming up again

Why? Were humans suffering from the cold? The Earth was cooling but at a geological pace. The forcing from our GHG emissions has easily overwhelmed the cooling that was taking place.

. 68% of earth's landmass is north of the Equator. If Earth warms up, there will be huge areas in Siberia and Canada that will become habitable.

And a larger area to either side of the Equator and along the entire planet's coastlines that will become uninhabitable. And it's not as if there's good soil up there waiting for temperatures to rise. The tundra will turn into a swamp of bubbling muck. Many other areas are rock and gravel. Good soil is built up by healthy flora over thousands and thousands of years. Siberia is not going to turn into Ukraine overnight.

Much more land will be available for earth's growing population. Much more land, once barren and frozen, will be usable as farmland. It will be an exciting prosperous time to be alive.

No, it will not.

A 2019 Russian study, showed this very thing is possible. Any American 'scientist' who came up with such an analysis, of course, would soon find himself unemployed.

Only because he'd look like an idiot.

"Our simulations showed that under RCP8.5, by the 2080s Asian Russia would have a milder climate, with less permafrost coverage, decreasing from the contemporary 65 per cent to 40 per cent of the area by the 2080s."

The researchers also found that even under the RCP 2.6 scenario, the ELP for human sustainability would improve in more than 15 per cent of the area, which could allow for a five-fold increase in the in the capacity of the territory to sustain and become attractive to human populations.

Could climate change make Siberia more habitable?

Large parts of Asian Russia could become habitable by the late 21st century due to climate change, new research has found. Scientists used current and predicted climate scenarios to examine the climate comfort of Asian Russia and work out the potential for human settlement throughout the 21st...

www.sciencedaily.com

This of course, is bad news for the left. First, they don't believe in the stuff they're pedaling. They don't believe sea levels are rising Every wealthy leftist in the world has a mansion by the ocean: 0bama, Algore, Gates, Soros....you name it. But they push this meme solely in order to extract huge sums from American taxpayers. And so the positive side of global warming, if it exists, is NOT what these people want. It scuttles their scam.

That Russians believe warming will increase the amount of land "attractive to human populations" does not impress me. Neither does your argument. AGW is not a scam. It is not based on Obama, Gore, Gates or Soros but on the peer reviewed studies of thousands and thousands of degreed scientists.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good to hear. Not true, but good to hear.

Global warming is catholic and so assumes a positive outlook on pretty much everything?

I'm afraid that is both irrelevant and inaccurate. The rate of change of both CO2 and temperature that have taken place since the start of the Industrial Revolution are unprecedented in several million years. And, of course, the Earth has never before experienced the combustion of billions of tons of fossil fuels.

Why? Were humans suffering from the cold? The Earth was cooling but at a geological pace. The forcing from our GHG emissions has easily overwhelmed the cooling that was taking place.

And a larger area to either side of the Equator and along the entire planet's coastlines that will become uninhabitable. And it's not as if there's good soil up there waiting for temperatures to rise. The tundra will turn into a swamp of bubbling muck. Many other areas are rock and gravel. Good soil is built up by healthy flora over thousands and thousands of years. Siberia is not going to turn into Ukraine overnight.

No, it will not.

Only because he'd look like an idiot.

That Russians believe warming will increase the amount of land "attractive to human populations" does not impress me. Neither does your argument. AGW is not a scam. It is not based on Obama, Gore, Gates or Soros but on the peer reviewed studies of thousands and thousands of degreed scientists.

The rate of change of both CO2 and temperature that have taken place since the start of the Industrial Revolution are unprecedented in several million years.

When was the start of the Industrial Revolution in your scenario?

 

[ReinyDays]

That Russians believe warming will increase the amount of land "attractive to human populations" does not impress me. Neither does your argument. AGW is not a scam. It is not based on Obama, Gore, Gates or Soros but on the peer reviewed studies of thousands and thousands of degreed scientists.

Yet you can't cite a single scientific paper that provides clear and convincing proof of AGW ... fucking LIAR ...

 

[Crick]

Yet you can't cite a single scientific paper that provides clear and convincing proof of AGW ... fucking LIAR ...

As I've told you at least a dozen times now, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. If you'd like to see some of the evidence that has convinced 99% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid, then I suggest you read the document I've recommended to you at least a dozen times: Working Group I's "The Physical Science Basis" from AR6. It may be found at www.ipcc.ch.

I'd really like you to identify the "fucking" lie you think I told, asshole. If its that AGW is based on the peer reviewed studies of thousands and thousands of scientists, standby to receive your ass.

 

[psikeyhackr]

As I've told you at least a dozen times now, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. If you'd like to see some of the evidence that has convinced 99% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid, then I suggest you read the document I've recommended to you at least a dozen times: Working Group I's "The Physical Science Basis" from AR6. It may be found at www.ipcc.ch.

I'd really like you to identify the "fucking" lie you think I told, asshole. If its that AGW is based on the peer reviewed studies of thousands and thousands of scientists, standby to receive your ass.

You can tell on and on and on.
The telling of idiocy means nothing.

 

[Crick]

You can tell on and on and on.
The telling of idiocy means nothing.

That looks as if you don't actually have a response.