Why we should listen to the 97%

[daveman]

Not with my money you're not moving on, madam.

In fact, we are. At least for the government responsibilities. As for all of the private investors pursuing the opportunity of future energy, you can opt out if you want.

You want us to follow the most expensive path. We employ science to determine the optimum path. You employ politics to try to impose your ignorance on us.

You have already lost.

If the government decides against the majority of the people, the people can do something about it. Keep up your pocket-picking of people who don't want or need your thefts, and you will see people putting evil thieves where they belong, behind bars with armed guards ensuring your comfortable stay. And if you took too much money through your piggish greed, lies, and graft, how are we the people going to take care of the thieves like you? Guess you'll go on a diet. Bid farewell to laughing your butt off on how easy it was for you to abuse the middle class and taking away their life's earnings for arrogance' sake. You have only painted me as a loser to conceal what you will lose if I do not cooperate with your help-yourself-to-my-life-savings schemes. It's my money and you cannot have it. I already paid plenty of taxes on it. You can't have any more.

PMS thinks he's entitled to it -- for the children!!

 

[daveman]

Again the mantra that freedom requires ignoring science.

I don't think so. But, I'm going to take you up on your offer to teach me science. Let's start here. Point out an error that I posted in my current understanding of science. Please.

All I had to do was see your post that the Carboniferous period was inhospitable to life to know you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. That was followed by your subsequent posts regarding that which were equally ignorant as to the realities.

All I have to do is hear you repeat again and again that we, who value honest science, think "freedom requires ignoring science."

All I have to do is look at all the straw men, non sequiturs, and red herrings you throw into your arguments to avoid dealing with the excellent rebuttal against your very limited and skewed science knowledge, and the fact you don't even understand the rebuttal, much less are able to competently rebut it.

Something I learned long ago, that you still seem to have not learned, is that you cannot bluff expertise or knowledge for long. And you are dealing with some people on this thread who, if they are not experts, do possess some pretty good solid knowledge of the subject. And who I cannot find any flaws in their arguments.

The one fact in your post is correct. It would have been more accurate for me to be more specific and say inhospitable to higher forms of life.

Really? What's inhospitable about 163% more oxygen and the same temperatures we have today?

Looks like you got that wrong, too.

 

[daveman]

I take back what I said earlier, Becki. PMZ does use similar posting style and syntax as some others here have used.

All I can tell you, PMZ, is that I agree that humans are the only known species on Earth who is aware of species and conditions outside their own immediate existence and/or who has the capacity to study them and care about them.

Also, humankind is the only known species on Earth with the capacity to dishonestly plot and plan ways and means to benefit by fooling, coercing, brainwashing, threatening, or forcing others to bend to its will and further its ambitions.

To assume that none would use flawed science to accomplish that is naive at best, and dangerously ignorant at worst.

My experience is that the vast majority of science and scientists are professional, honest, skilled and objective, and the vast majority of politics and politicians are groups trying to impose what's best for them on others who do not benefit.

Your experience is limited, kid, considering you're not even 20 years old yet.

 

[daveman]

''To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.''

That’s why I didn't assume it. I don't know why you did.

Because you said it, boy: "It would have been more accurate for me to be more specific and say inhospitable to higher forms of life."

It's always funny when liberals play I Didn't Say What I Said.

 

[JoeNormal]

''To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.''

That’s why I didn't assume it. I don't know why you did.

The AGW issue is an economic one. Many of us could survive on Mars if we had to but the world would go broke building the required infrastructure.

The only climate we're adapted to with our infrastructure is the one we've had for a few millenia.

We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs. We don't know how much more we'll add. That’s what the IPCC is modeling so we can decide what are alternatives are.

I can't personally understand why anybody would not want that insight.

Sweety.

Everything you said is true. I want to add one point to it. It has been theorized that a 5 degree C rise will not just make the Earth hotter. It will raise the alkalinity of the oceans to the point where phytoplankton (the base of the food chain) will die off. It will essentially kill the oceans.

You'll have to explain why this have never happened in the past when the temperature was often far more than 5 degrees warmer than it is today.

It's obviously just another hysterical warmist bullshit theory.

Ever heard of the Permean Extinction? This is what they think happened during that event.

Permian?Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I take back what I said earlier, Becki. PMZ does use similar posting style and syntax as some others here have used.

All I can tell you, PMZ, is that I agree that humans are the only known species on Earth who is aware of species and conditions outside their own immediate existence and/or who has the capacity to study them and care about them.

Also, humankind is the only known species on Earth with the capacity to dishonestly plot and plan ways and means to benefit by fooling, coercing, brainwashing, threatening, or forcing others to bend to its will and further its ambitions.

To assume that none would use flawed science to accomplish that is naive at best, and dangerously ignorant at worst.

My experience is that the vast majority of science and scientists are professional, honest, skilled and objective, and the vast majority of politics and politicians are groups trying to impose what's best for them on others who do not benefit.

and the vast majority of politics and politicians are groups trying to impose what's best for them on others who do not benefit.


Perfect description of liberal politicians trying to force us to spend trillions to reduce CO2.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The one fact in your post is correct. It would have been more accurate for me to be more specific and say inhospitable to higher forms of life.

See you keep moving the goal posts but continue to say ignorant things. It is true that many species that live now had not yet evolved during that that time. But that period, more than any other, provided the building blocks for the great mammals to follow. The carboniferous period was the time that great reptiles, huge complex plants, and the more primitve fish shed their armor and evolved into very similar species that we know today.

The Carboniferous Period saw the first true bony fishes, the first sharks and the first amphibians evolve. It also was the time period during which the first amniotes arose. The amniotic egg, the defining characteristic of amniotes, enabled the ancestors or modern reptiles, birds, and mammals to to reproduce on land and colonise terrestrial habitats that were previously uninhabited by vertebrates.

To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.

''To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.''

That’s why I didn't assume it. I don't know why you did.

The AGW issue is an economic one. Many of us could survive on Mars if we had to but the world would go broke building the required infrastructure.

The only climate we're adapted to with our infrastructure is the one we've had for a few millenia.

We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs. We don't know how much more we'll add. That’s what the IPCC is modeling so we can decide what are alternatives are.

I can't personally understand why anybody would not want that insight.

Sweety.

We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs.

Quick, let's spend tens of trillions, before we find out!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again the mantra that freedom requires ignoring science.

I don't think so. But, I'm going to take you up on your offer to teach me science. Let's start here. Point out an error that I posted in my current understanding of science. Please.

All I had to do was see your post that the Carboniferous period was inhospitable to life to know you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. That was followed by your subsequent posts regarding that which were equally ignorant as to the realities.

All I have to do is hear you repeat again and again that we, who value honest science, think "freedom requires ignoring science."

All I have to do is look at all the straw men, non sequiturs, and red herrings you throw into your arguments to avoid dealing with the excellent rebuttal against your very limited and skewed science knowledge, and the fact you don't even understand the rebuttal, much less are able to competently rebut it.

Something I learned long ago, that you still seem to have not learned, is that you cannot bluff expertise or knowledge for long. And you are dealing with some people on this thread who, if they are not experts, do possess some pretty good solid knowledge of the subject. And who I cannot find any flaws in their arguments.

The one fact in your post is correct. It would have been more accurate for me to be more specific and say inhospitable to higher forms of life.

Wrong about the Carboniferous. Wrong about terrorists obtaining fissile material.
Wrong about reprocessing used fuel producing fissile materials.
Wrong about melting Arctic Sea ice (floating ice) flooding our coastlines.

I'm sure you're right about our urgent need to spend tens of trillions to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.

 

[PMZ]

See you keep moving the goal posts but continue to say ignorant things. It is true that many species that live now had not yet evolved during that that time. But that period, more than any other, provided the building blocks for the great mammals to follow. The carboniferous period was the time that great reptiles, huge complex plants, and the more primitve fish shed their armor and evolved into very similar species that we know today.

The Carboniferous Period saw the first true bony fishes, the first sharks and the first amphibians evolve. It also was the time period during which the first amniotes arose. The amniotic egg, the defining characteristic of amniotes, enabled the ancestors or modern reptiles, birds, and mammals to to reproduce on land and colonise terrestrial habitats that were previously uninhabited by vertebrates.

To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.

''To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.''

That’s why I didn't assume it. I don't know why you did.

The AGW issue is an economic one. Many of us could survive on Mars if we had to but the world would go broke building the required infrastructure.

The only climate we're adapted to with our infrastructure is the one we've had for a few millenia.

We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs. We don't know how much more we'll add. That’s what the IPCC is modeling so we can decide what are alternatives are.

I can't personally understand why anybody would not want that insight.

Sweety.

Everything you said is true. I want to add one point to it. It has been theorized that a 5 degree C rise will not just make the Earth hotter. It will raise the alkalinity of the oceans to the point where phytoplankton (the base of the food chain) will die off. It will essentially kill the oceans.

You can see from the posts between yours and this one why conservatives are passionately against simple truth. They just don't want to know. As long as they can tell each other that science is evil they have a chance at their pitiful goal. Getting other people and future generations to pay their bills. A blatantly entitled world view.

It is because they have become so adverse to truth, and so entitlement minded, that they're killing whatever political relevance they might have once had.

That's a great, nay, necessary result for the country though their extinction will be noisy.

 

[daveman]

Everything you said is true. I want to add one point to it. It has been theorized that a 5 degree C rise will not just make the Earth hotter. It will raise the alkalinity of the oceans to the point where phytoplankton (the base of the food chain) will die off. It will essentially kill the oceans.

You'll have to explain why this have never happened in the past when the temperature was often far more than 5 degrees warmer than it is today.

It's obviously just another hysterical warmist bullshit theory.

Ever heard of the Permean Extinction? This is what they think happened during that event.

Permian?Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, analysis of the fossil river deposits of the floodplains indicate a shift from meandering to braided river patterns, indicating an abrupt drying of the climate.[62] The climate change may have taken as little as 100,000 years, prompting the extinction of the unique Glossopteris flora and its herbivores, followed by the carnivorous guild.[63]​

We must adopt world socialism NOW to save us from this imminent threat!!

 

[daveman]

As long as they can tell each other that science is evil they have a chance at their pitiful goal.

Son, you need to stop lying. Now.

We've told you time and again we support science...but we DON'T support your flawed climate science.

Predictably, this will not sink in, because you're not sophisticated enough to counter your programming.

So you'll just keep lying.

Dumbass kid.

 

[daveman]

That's a great, nay, necessary result for the country though their extinction will be noisy.

Yep, there it is again -- the progressive Solution to dissent.

And it's their usual Final one.

 

[PMZ]

You'll have to explain why this have never happened in the past when the temperature was often far more than 5 degrees warmer than it is today.

It's obviously just another hysterical warmist bullshit theory.

Ever heard of the Permean Extinction? This is what they think happened during that event.

Permian?Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, analysis of the fossil river deposits of the floodplains indicate a shift from meandering to braided river patterns, indicating an abrupt drying of the climate.[62] The climate change may have taken as little as 100,000 years, prompting the extinction of the unique Glossopteris flora and its herbivores, followed by the carnivorous guild.[63]​

We must adopt world socialism NOW to save us from this imminent threat!!

Notice the solid connection Dave has established to advocate abolishing science for the sake of avoiding ''world socialism''.

You have to admire his collection of monsters in the closet.

What's next? Alien invasion?

 

[Abraham3]

Quick, let's spend tens of trillions, before we find out!!!!

What we spend will easily save us ten times that amount given what we already know. There is no uncertainty regarding the greenhouse effect. There is no uncertainty regarding sea level rise. Both represent an enormously costly threat to our civilization. Feel free to ignore it. Putting things off as long as possible is almost always the best approach, isn't it.

 

[PMZ]

See you keep moving the goal posts but continue to say ignorant things. It is true that many species that live now had not yet evolved during that that time. But that period, more than any other, provided the building blocks for the great mammals to follow. The carboniferous period was the time that great reptiles, huge complex plants, and the more primitve fish shed their armor and evolved into very similar species that we know today.

The Carboniferous Period saw the first true bony fishes, the first sharks and the first amphibians evolve. It also was the time period during which the first amniotes arose. The amniotic egg, the defining characteristic of amniotes, enabled the ancestors or modern reptiles, birds, and mammals to to reproduce on land and colonise terrestrial habitats that were previously uninhabited by vertebrates.

To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.

''To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.''

That’s why I didn't assume it. I don't know why you did.

The AGW issue is an economic one. Many of us could survive on Mars if we had to but the world would go broke building the required infrastructure.

The only climate we're adapted to with our infrastructure is the one we've had for a few millenia.

We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs. We don't know how much more we'll add. That’s what the IPCC is modeling so we can decide what are alternatives are.

I can't personally understand why anybody would not want that insight.

Sweety.

We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs.

Quick, let's spend tens of trillions, before we find out!!!!

So far, you are the only one proposing that.

We're engaged in using science to discover what the least cost path is between here and the inevitable change to sustainable energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

''To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.''

That’s why I didn't assume it. I don't know why you did.

The AGW issue is an economic one. Many of us could survive on Mars if we had to but the world would go broke building the required infrastructure.

The only climate we're adapted to with our infrastructure is the one we've had for a few millenia.

We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs. We don't know how much more we'll add. That’s what the IPCC is modeling so we can decide what are alternatives are.

I can't personally understand why anybody would not want that insight.

Sweety.

Everything you said is true. I want to add one point to it. It has been theorized that a 5 degree C rise will not just make the Earth hotter. It will raise the alkalinity of the oceans to the point where phytoplankton (the base of the food chain) will die off. It will essentially kill the oceans.

You can see from the posts between yours and this one why conservatives are passionately against simple truth. They just don't want to know. As long as they can tell each other that science is evil they have a chance at their pitiful goal. Getting other people and future generations to pay their bills. A blatantly entitled world view.

It is because they have become so adverse to truth, and so entitlement minded, that they're killing whatever political relevance they might have once had.

That's a great, nay, necessary result for the country though their extinction will be noisy.

It is because they have become so adverse to truth, and so entitlement minded, that they're killing whatever political relevance they might have once had.

You're right, the entire world is united behind your CO2 reduction schemes, except for a few anti-science Republicans.

Remind me again how many votes Cap and Trade and the Kyoto Treaty received in the US Senate.

Thanks!

 

[JoeNormal]

You'll have to explain why this have never happened in the past when the temperature was often far more than 5 degrees warmer than it is today.

It's obviously just another hysterical warmist bullshit theory.

Ever heard of the Permean Extinction? This is what they think happened during that event.

Permian?Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, analysis of the fossil river deposits of the floodplains indicate a shift from meandering to braided river patterns, indicating an abrupt drying of the climate.[62] The climate change may have taken as little as 100,000 years, prompting the extinction of the unique Glossopteris flora and its herbivores, followed by the carnivorous guild.[63]​

We must adopt world socialism NOW to save us from this imminent threat!!

I think you have a false sense of complacency. If you think that the collapse of the food chain isn't going to have a major impact on civilization, you're in for a big surprise. Maybe Soylent Green will become available. Won't that be great.

 

[PMZ]

As long as they can tell each other that science is evil they have a chance at their pitiful goal.

Son, you need to stop lying. Now.

We've told you time and again we support science...but we DON'T support your flawed climate science.

Predictably, this will not sink in, because you're not sophisticated enough to counter your programming.

So you'll just keep lying.

Dumbass kid.

The IPCC climate is the climate science the world has now. There is no other. Denialists have no science, no organization, no resources, no theories, no data, nothing. So that's the choice. IPCC climate science or no climate science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quick, let's spend tens of trillions, before we find out!!!!

What we spend will easily save us ten times that amount given what we already know. There is no uncertainty regarding the greenhouse effect. There is no uncertainty regarding sea level rise. Both represent an enormously costly threat to our civilization. Feel free to ignore it. Putting things off as long as possible is almost always the best approach, isn't it.

What we spend will easily save us ten times that amount given what we already know.

Obviously!
Spending $20 trillion could save us as much as $200 trillion.
Maybe even $1 quadrillion.
Of course, my estimates are conservative.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

''To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.''

That’s why I didn't assume it. I don't know why you did.

The AGW issue is an economic one. Many of us could survive on Mars if we had to but the world would go broke building the required infrastructure.

The only climate we're adapted to with our infrastructure is the one we've had for a few millenia.

We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs. We don't know how much more we'll add. That’s what the IPCC is modeling so we can decide what are alternatives are.

I can't personally understand why anybody would not want that insight.

Sweety.

We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs.

Quick, let's spend tens of trillions, before we find out!!!!

So far, you are the only one proposing that.

We're engaged in using science to discover what the least cost path is between here and the inevitable change to sustainable energy.

Whenever government spending and coercion is involved, you can guarantee it's not the "least cost path".