Why we should listen to the 97%

[PMZ]

You're right, the bigger government the better.

In fact, Cuba and North Korea are still reaping those benefits.

The difference is democracy.

Surprised?

Yes, I'm surprised you think Somalia has a democracy.

Somalia doesn't even have a government. Just as you'd prefer here.

 

[PMZ]

The world has no scheme to reduce the present levels of CO2.

I'm talking about future levels.
How's that world-wide plan working out?

Are you implying that everybody who favors using science to find the least cost path to sustainable energy favors the Kyoto Treaty?

Are you saying the Kyoto Treaty didn't pass the US Senate?
Was it at least close? Except for those few, anti-science Republicans?

Re Kyoto:

in 1997, three years before Bush’s election—was a rare moment of bipartisan consensus on climate policy; the Senate voted unanimously (95-0) against its basic tenets, and the Clinton-Gore administration never submitted it for ratification. (Even a little-known state legislator from Illinois named Barack Obama voted to condemn Kyoto and prohibit the state from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.)

www.american.com/.../the-quiet-yet-historic-death-of-the-kyoto-protoco*

I forgot that Obama is an anti-science Republican.

Republicans aren't anti-science As a general rule. Conservatives are.

 

[PMZ]

Lots of people didn't support a government plan to reduce CO2 emmissions?
Even you? What are you, some sort of anti-science Republican?

Apparently you believe that all government plans to reduce CO2 emmissions are the same. That’s a pretty unthinking position to take. Did that come from Rush?

Apparently you believe that all government plans to reduce CO2 emmissions are the same.

They're not? Didn't they get the science from the IPCC?

I'm shocked a liberal would be against a plan to reduce CO2.
Did you bump your head?
Why were you against Kyoto?

You have continuing trouble distinguishing between science and politics. Science is the one that requires education.

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatism is not the first dysfunctional political movement to be rejected by democracy.

Look at communism as an example.

I have. Obviously, you haven't -- otherwise you'd see that what you advocate is a proven failure.

Actually, democracy has been very successful.

Yeah, it's been vastly successful at spending the Western World into bankruptcy, looting the productive capital of the world and vastly expanding the class of useless parasites.

 

[PMZ]

It means that given the LACK of scientific evidence that humankind is having any kind of long term detrimental effect on Planet Earth, we should be devoting our resources to adapting to inevitable climate change rather than trying to control it.

Dificult concept to grasp I know.

There is no lack of scientific evidence that humankind is having a detrimental effect on Planet Earth. If you don't care about greenhouse gas emissions, how about polluted air, polluted water, species driven to extinction by hunting and loss of habitat, overpopulation, food shortages, an ocean filled to overflowing with indestructible plastic waste, hundreds of millions of tons of oil spills, massive scars across the land where reeking black coal is stripped from the Earth... et cetera. Is that the work of God and Nature? Should we do nothing about any of those because God and Nature are doing such good work?

Your god would not oppose humans working to protect and restore the Earth from the damage WE OURSELVES are doing to it.

No thinking or responsible person is an advocate for intentionally polluting the water, soil, air which is why we were dealing with that long before AGW became even a suggestion, much less a religion. So let's not confuse localized pollution with climate change which is very different thing.

The cure for widespread pollution is aflluence because the more affluent people are, the more they demand that the air, soil, water be well cared for and that the aesthetic beauty of the Earth and the creatures that inhabit it be preserved. When the people's first concern is simply to find any kind of shelter and anything at all to eat, they will care less about the environment or the climate.

The weird thing is, the AGW religionists want policy that will actually increase those who won't care about the environment or climate as they will remain poor much longer and in much larger numbers.

Interesting view. That people who ignore science are more affluent. Not my experience. The affluent ones that I know are actually very astute at managing risk through knowledge. I can't think of a single exception.

 

[bripat9643]

Re Kyoto:

I forgot that Obama is an anti-science Republican.

Republicans aren't anti-science As a general rule. Conservatives are.

No, they're just against hocu-pocus and abracadabra masquerading as science for the purpose of bilking American taxpayers out of $trillions of dollars.

 

[PMZ]

actually, that's about as unthinking an opinion as i can imagine.

yes, but you're just a really stupid kid, so your ridiculous opinions (that you couldn't even form yourself) are immediately dismissable.

how old is pmz?

71

 

[PMZ]

I have. Obviously, you haven't -- otherwise you'd see that what you advocate is a proven failure.

Actually, democracy has been very successful.

Yeah, it's been vastly successful at spending the Western World into bankruptcy, looting the productive capital of the world and vastly expanding the class of useless parasites.

Why don't you relocate to a country that has an ineffective government rather than dragging the US down?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The difference is democracy.

Surprised?

Considering that you've told us you want to eliminate conservatives entirely, your claim of valuing democracy rings rather hollow, child.

Absolutely not. Democracy is the force that conservatism can't get by. As you try to impose your dysfunctional world view on the informed electorate they see right through you and your hatred of government. Why would anyone in a democracy vote enemies of government into government?

Democracy is the force that conservatism can't get by.

Which is why liberals passed Kyoto in 2000 and Cap and Trade in 2009.

 

[PMZ]

I forgot that Obama is an anti-science Republican.

Republicans aren't anti-science As a general rule. Conservatives are.

No, they're just against hocu-pocus and abracadabra masquerading as science for the purpose of bilking American taxpayers out of $trillions of dollars.

No, they are against all science that doesn't support their ability to impose ineffective government on everyone. Which is most science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Apparently you believe that all government plans to reduce CO2 emmissions are the same. That’s a pretty unthinking position to take. Did that come from Rush?

Apparently you believe that all government plans to reduce CO2 emmissions are the same.

They're not? Didn't they get the science from the IPCC?

I'm shocked a liberal would be against a plan to reduce CO2.
Did you bump your head?
Why were you against Kyoto?

You have continuing trouble distinguishing between science and politics. Science is the one that requires education.

I get it, you're bad at both.

 

[daveman]

Conservatism is not the first dysfunctional political movement to be rejected by democracy.

Look at communism as an example.

I have. Obviously, you haven't -- otherwise you'd see that what you advocate is a proven failure.

Actually, democracy has been very successful.

Pssst: When the country's official name is something like The People's Democratic etc. -- it's not a democracy.

Idiot.

 

[daveman]

Ever hear of the IPCC? They're keepers of the scientific evidence.

They're corrupt and incompetent.

Secret Santa Whistleblower Files End Climate Change Catastrophe Cult, Says Friends of Science

But two weeks later on December 13, 2012 Alec Rawls leaked 14 draft chapters of the upcoming IPCC report on-line. The Secret Santa leak includes a further 30 chapters and over 33,000 expert reviewer comments. The leaked draft confirmed the catastrophic warming scenarios of the previous IPCC climate models were way off, far too high, by several factors.

Further, the IPCC itself stated that there was no trend toward more extreme weather, confirming the Oct. 31, 2012 Wall Street Journal statement by Roger Pielke Jr. in "Hurricanes and Human Choice" that “There are no signs that human-caused climate change has increased the toll of recent disasters....”

“And finally, the IPCC admitted and then evaded recognition that the sun is a major factor in climate change,” says Gregory.​

You are unable, of course, to dispute their science. That’s evident to everyone. So you take the dirty politics route that has defined modern conservative politics. Nobody expects any more from you.

I cheer every one of your posts as you add to the decline of conservatism. Not that that decline needs your help, but I welcome it anyway.

I'm curious:

What kind of head trauma have you suffered?

 

[daveman]

The difference is democracy.

Surprised?

Considering that you've told us you want to eliminate conservatives entirely, your claim of valuing democracy rings rather hollow, child.

Absolutely not. Democracy is the force that conservatism can't get by. As you try to impose your dysfunctional world view on the informed electorate they see right through you and your hatred of government. Why would anyone in a democracy vote enemies of government into government?

Because they agree with us.

Your inability to comprehend that basic fact does in no way alter reality.

 

[daveman]

yes, but you're just a really stupid kid, so your ridiculous opinions (that you couldn't even form yourself) are immediately dismissable.

how old is pmz?

71

Dyslexic, huh?

 

[daveman]

Actually, democracy has been very successful.

Yeah, it's been vastly successful at spending the Western World into bankruptcy, looting the productive capital of the world and vastly expanding the class of useless parasites.

Why don't you relocate to a country that has an ineffective government rather than dragging the US down?

You think our government is effective?

You DEFINITELY have head trauma.

 

[westwall]

Bizarre. We have science. You have politics. You don't want science, we don't want politics. You are searching for a political solution, we are searching for facts.

The world cannot afford to do nothing. You can't imagine a solution so doing nothing is your recommendation. You simply ignore the end of fossil fuels. What then, is answered by "punt".

Not anywhere near good enough.

\




You don't have shit silly person. ALL you have is propaganda and blind (really blind as it turns out) faith. You clowns are worse than the Westboro Baptist Church fruitcakes.

The factual basis for this rant is?

Ummmm, facts. Historical fact, scientific fact, and the fact that you have never once been able to refute one of our facts.

 

[westwall]

The surest way for the Warmers to end the debate is to show us in a lab how an 800ppm atmosphere of CO2 will raise temperature by 3 degrees

That would convince me

There are too many variable to do such an experiment in a lab.

That is untrue Snookie. It IS a doable experiment. They just don't want to do it because it won't support their hypothesis.

 

[westwall]

Let's try a process of elimination.

It's not a million C.

It's not 0 Kelvin.

Must be something in between.

The effort to stop AGW is not an effort to get to some ideal temperature. YOUR effort to imply that warmer might be better is disingenuous, dangerous and incredibly uncaring for the lives and welfare of our children.

You KNOW that 2,3 or 5 C added temperature over a century's time will be devastating in the extreme.

And thanks to the functional ignorance of the human race and the efforts of you and yours, we'll get to find out first hand.

So you are yet another one of the idiots who think a one degree rise is somehow meaningful. What is the difference in average temperature from Tierra Del Fuego and the Gobi Desert? People and animals live in both places.

And, for the record, your little whiney last sentence sounds like something my 7 year old daughter would say when she isn't allowed a treat.

And you are one of those idiots who think that a 12 degree change is benign.

We plainly can't afford that kind of problem avoidance.

12 degrees? Not even the IPCC in their wildest fit of lunacy has made that claim. Please show us evidence for a 12 degree rise that isn't based on a computer model of proven crappiness.

 

[westwall]

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

Try using a non biased site. In one of those you will see that the majority of climatological causes for the P?T extinction is COLD. Not warm. The last time we know for sure that it was really hot was during the PETM and in that case other than some very localized forams that died out (prtobably due to anoxia) the biosphere on the planet exploded in all sorts of ways. The majority of the major fauna we enjoy today evolved during the PETM. Terrestrial life exploded.

Now look up the Principle of Uniformitarianism and tell us what that means for the extinction theories....