IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”

[skookerasbil]

Dave bro.......you gotta take a gandor in here more often man..................

The k00ks in here present their shit like there is no linkage to whats happening in the real world.............as if their agenda is marching unobstructed into the future.

These mental case OCD's will never change their minds due to significant damage that is irrepairable, but to me, it is about exposing their BS to the few curious minds who come in here and check out some information they know little about. And thats the part where we make these assholes look like fools obsessed with their k00k cause.

 

[daveman]

Very poor analogy. There has always been CO2 in the environment. The new drug in your scenario hasn't.

It's the rate of CO2 rise which is the analogy. There hasn't always been such fast a CO2 rise in the environment, in fact no prior example is known to science.

No, it's a poor analogy.

 

[RWatt]

It's the rate of CO2 rise which is the analogy. There hasn't always been such fast a CO2 rise in the environment, in fact no prior example is known to science.

No, it's a poor analogy.

It's a great analogy.

The CO2 rise we are undertaking is new and there's no evidence it's safe. Like a new drug before testing.

We demand drug companies test drugs to ensure they are safe before selling them. The burden is not on the regulator to prove a new drug is dangerous.

 

[daveman]

No, it's a poor analogy.

It's a great analogy.

The CO2 rise we are undertaking is new and there's no evidence it's safe. Like a new drug before testing.

We demand drug companies test drugs to ensure they are safe before selling them. The burden is not on the regulator to prove a new drug is dangerous.

So you want us to prove that CO2, which has been in the environment since we had an environment, is not dangerous.

Do you know anything at all about science?

 

[RWatt]

It's a great analogy.

The CO2 rise we are undertaking is new and there's no evidence it's safe. Like a new drug before testing.

We demand drug companies test drugs to ensure they are safe before selling them. The burden is not on the regulator to prove a new drug is dangerous.

So you want us to prove that CO2, which has been in the environment since we had an environment, is not dangerous.

Do you know anything at all about science?

Once again - it's the rate of the CO2 rise that's the issue. Not CO2 itself. As I have said before there is no known example of CO2 rising this fast in the past.

"Is your new drug safe?" asks the public.

"A weaker version of the drug has been on sale for years, it's not dangerous", replied the drug company.

"But the drug has never been this strong before. We are asking whether this new strengthened version is safe.", asked the public.

"So you want us to prove that the stronger version of the drug is not dangerous before we sell it?", asked the drug company. "Do you know anything at all about science? Everyone knows it's not possible to test drugs. Everyone knows the burden is not on us to test that drugs are safe before sale. The fact is that until someone has proved the drug is dangerous we should be allowed to sell it as safe."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Very poor analogy. There has always been CO2 in the environment. The new drug in your scenario hasn't.

It's the rate of CO2 rise which is the analogy. There hasn't always been such fast a CO2 rise in the environment, in fact no prior example is known to science.

So how come nobody ever gets the results you describe when we instantaneously introduce an additional 60PPM of CO2 in a laboratory setting?

It's Dark Energy that behind the "Global Warming", has to be.

 

[daveman]

So you want us to prove that CO2, which has been in the environment since we had an environment, is not dangerous.

Do you know anything at all about science?

Once again - it's the rate of the CO2 rise that's the issue. Not CO2 itself. As I have said before there is no known example of CO2 rising this fast in the past.

"Is your new drug safe?" asks the public.

"A weaker version of the drug has been on sale for years, it's not dangerous", replied the drug company.

"But the drug has never been this strong before. We are asking whether this new strengthened version is safe.", asked the public.

"So you want us to prove that the stronger version of the drug is not dangerous before we sell it?", asked the drug company. "Do you know anything at all about science? Everyone knows it's not possible to test drugs. Everyone knows the burden is not on us to test that drugs are safe before sale. The fact is that until someone has proved the drug is dangerous we should be allowed to sell it as safe."

And you really think that's sufficient justification to cripple the economies of the Western world?

 

[daveman]

It's the rate of CO2 rise which is the analogy. There hasn't always been such fast a CO2 rise in the environment, in fact no prior example is known to science.

So how come nobody ever gets the results you describe when we instantaneously introduce an additional 60PPM of CO2 in a laboratory setting?

It's Dark Energy that behind the "Global Warming", has to be.

Lab work is for students and suckers. Real science happens on paper. It's called "grant proposals".

 

[RWatt]

It's the rate of CO2 rise which is the analogy. There hasn't always been such fast a CO2 rise in the environment, in fact no prior example is known to science.

So how come nobody ever gets the results you describe when we instantaneously introduce an additional 60PPM of CO2 in a laboratory setting?

I haven't described any results. Quite the contrary I am arguing that there are insufficient results to conclude the CO2 rise is safe.

Lab conditions don't mirror the real world, so such a test would be inconclusive. It's like injecting an ant with the drug and claiming the results prove it's safe for human consumption.

 

[daveman]

So how come nobody ever gets the results you describe when we instantaneously introduce an additional 60PPM of CO2 in a laboratory setting?

I haven't described any results. Quite the contrary I am arguing that there are insufficient results to conclude the CO2 rise is safe.

Lab conditions don't mirror the real world, so such a test would be inconclusive. It's like injecting an ant with the drug and claiming the results prove it's safe for human consumption.

Then you're saying the lab results showing CO2 to be a greenhouse gas are inconclusive?

 

[RWatt]

Once again - it's the rate of the CO2 rise that's the issue. Not CO2 itself. As I have said before there is no known example of CO2 rising this fast in the past.

"Is your new drug safe?" asks the public.

"A weaker version of the drug has been on sale for years, it's not dangerous", replied the drug company.

"But the drug has never been this strong before. We are asking whether this new strengthened version is safe.", asked the public.

"So you want us to prove that the stronger version of the drug is not dangerous before we sell it?", asked the drug company. "Do you know anything at all about science? Everyone knows it's not possible to test drugs. Everyone knows the burden is not on us to test that drugs are safe before sale. The fact is that until someone has proved the drug is dangerous we should be allowed to sell it as safe."

And you really think that's sufficient justification to cripple the economies of the Western world?

"And you think that's sufficient justification to cripple our profits?", the drug company ask. "A whole lot of people in this town depend on us for their jobs. We need to sell this drug"

"That may be so", reply the public, "but the fact remains the drug should be considered dangerous until it's been properly tested. If you want to argue that it's worth running the risk of selling an untested drug to save jobs then do so, but don't lie to achieve that aim by disingenuously claiming there is no issue with the safety of the drug."

 

[RWatt]

I haven't described any results. Quite the contrary I am arguing that there are insufficient results to conclude the CO2 rise is safe.

Lab conditions don't mirror the real world, so such a test would be inconclusive. It's like injecting an ant with the drug and claiming the results prove it's safe for human consumption.

Then you're saying the lab results showing CO2 to be a greenhouse gas are inconclusive?

Lab results are inconclusive about the effect of doubling CO2 levels within the space of 200 years. There is no known way of testing that in a lab. You can't just double CO2 levels in a room unless that room contains ice sheets, an atlantic ocean, rainforests and deserts.

 

[daveman]

And you really think that's sufficient justification to cripple the economies of the Western world?

"And you think that's sufficient justification to cripple our profits?", the drug company ask. "A whole lot of people in this town depend on us for their jobs. We need to sell this drug"

"That may be so", reply the public, "but the fact remains the drug should be considered dangerous until it's been properly tested. If you want to argue that it's worth running the risk of selling an untested drug to save jobs then do so, but don't lie to achieve that aim by disingenuously claiming there is no issue with the safety of the drug."

Again, very poor analogy. The only people affected by your non-analogous analogy are the drug company and the patients who take their drug.

The "solutions" advocated by AGW supporters will affect everyone.

I suggest you go find a different strategy. This one simply isn't working.

 

[Big Fitz]

"We want you to prove the drugs are safe before you release them for sale", demand the public.

"So you want science to prove a negative?", replied the drug company.

"No", replied the public, "we said we want you to prove they are safe. How on earth is that proving a negative?"

Really Captain Herbal Life? You've gotta be stoned out of your gourd to twist this way. Are you so fucking intellectually bankrupt you twist the whole point around for your own religion? Pa-the-tic. No no... not even that high. Despicable is more like it.

Know what? I'm done with this new batch of sock-puppet seminar poster retards that seem to have ironically cropped up all of a sudden at once. You assholes get together after a religious ceremony of eating moose turds and drinking unfiltered water between bong hits to decide to spread your bullshit religion with lies and intellectual claptrap online?

I don't have the interest to waste time on you fucktards beyond to mock and insult you.

 

[daveman]

Then you're saying the lab results showing CO2 to be a greenhouse gas are inconclusive?

Lab results are inconclusive about the effect of doubling CO2 levels within the space of 200 years. There is no known way of testing that in a lab. You can't just double CO2 levels in a room unless that room contains ice sheets, an atlantic ocean, rainforests and deserts.

So you want us to change national energy policy based on something you THINK will happen, but can't prove, based on experiments that can't be performed.

Bad science. Even worse policy.

Come back when you have something concrete.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So how come nobody ever gets the results you describe when we instantaneously introduce an additional 60PPM of CO2 in a laboratory setting?

I haven't described any results. Quite the contrary I am arguing that there are insufficient results to conclude the CO2 rise is safe.

Lab conditions don't mirror the real world, so such a test would be inconclusive. It's like injecting an ant with the drug and claiming the results prove it's safe for human consumption.

You haven't claimed that CO2 raises temperatures????????????

Do you know what the word "warming" means?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So how come nobody ever gets the results you describe when we instantaneously introduce an additional 60PPM of CO2 in a laboratory setting?

I haven't described any results. Quite the contrary I am arguing that there are insufficient results to conclude the CO2 rise is safe.

Lab conditions don't mirror the real world, so such a test would be inconclusive. It's like injecting an ant with the drug and claiming the results prove it's safe for human consumption.

Are you saying there are too many other variables besides a 60PPM increase in CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Should we do away with ALL laboratory testing?

 

[Oddball]

This part makes it clear this is about climate:
"Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

Non sequiturs based upon junk science never make anything any clearer.

By wealth redistribution he means if you put a cap on carbon emissions certain countries will be winners while others will be losers.....

The implications are:

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this"

Since the owners of oil and coal will be the ones looted by this taxation scam, via a pseudo-scientific hoax, the obvious is....WELL DUUH!

 

[RWatt]

"And you think that's sufficient justification to cripple our profits?", the drug company ask. "A whole lot of people in this town depend on us for their jobs. We need to sell this drug"

"That may be so", reply the public, "but the fact remains the drug should be considered dangerous until it's been properly tested. If you want to argue that it's worth running the risk of selling an untested drug to save jobs then do so, but don't lie to achieve that aim by disingenuously claiming there is no issue with the safety of the drug."

Again, very poor analogy. The only people affected by your non-analogous analogy are the drug company and the patients who take their drug.

The "solutions" advocated by AGW supporters will affect everyone.

I suggest you go find a different strategy. This one simply isn't working.

Okay lets say the entire economy is banked on the drug company.

The argument doesn't change.

It's fundamentally dishonest to argue something is safe just because you think that will make an economic argument is easier. If you are worried about the economic impact of CO2 reductions then have the balls to actually go with that and not hide behind arguing the CO2 rise will be safe.