# Assuming it was a hoax, what would be the goal of the global warming hoax?



## CultureCitizen (Nov 22, 2015)

Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 22, 2015)

Nudist seeking to wear less clothes everywhere....


----------



## Crick (Nov 22, 2015)

Manifold, per the denier types in this locale

1) Scientists get rich from research grants, they claim
2) Liberals wish to destroy the US or the world economy (because liberals hate everything)
3) Liberals wish to return to the pre-industrial era and live in caves wearing rabbit fur loincloths
4) Did I say scientists get rich from research grants?  Yeah?  Oh...

Well, I guess that's about it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 22, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?



Get the terminology right...

Global warming is soooo 1985


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Nov 22, 2015)

Money


----------



## Pogo (Nov 22, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?



A sacrament in the Church of Contrarianism?  (Rev. David Koch, high priest supreme, all hail His Holy Name....)


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 22, 2015)

bear513 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...



In 1977 it was a man made ice age.






I've got an idea, lets invent a problem that cannot be proven to not really exist since it happens naturally and insist that the cause is the fault of the prosperity of the greatest industrial and economic juggernaut the world has ever seen. We can use our influence in academia since we're all "scientists" or at least we can bullshit enough people to believe we are, along with a leftist media that hates capitalism in principle to convince a voting public that this "problem" can only be solved if their elected representatives give us billions of dollars to do more "research" while we fly around the world convincing people that all the "scientists" in the world need even more money to develop shit that no company would attempt to market because it will NEVER turn a profit and will have to be subsidized at tax payer expense.

In the mean time we can help other useless bed wetters like us get rich selling stupid shit like "carbon credits" to the mindless drones who our peers indoctrinate in public schools.

It's a fool proof....

No it's a fool dependent plan.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 22, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Nudist seeking to wear less clothes everywhere....


And getting rid of the neck tie...If that's all there is about it , count me in !!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?


I think Otmar Edenhofer said it best... In an interview with Germany's NZZ reporter:


(EDENHOFER): *Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.* The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? 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.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): "First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. *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. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore*, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

CAGW or AGW or Global Warming or Climate Disruption or whatever name they call it, it has always been about power, control and wealth redistribution.. FROM DAY 1

Source


According to the Media Research Center, Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> Manifold, per the denier types in this locale
> 
> 1) Scientists get rich from research grants, they claim
> 2) Liberals wish to destroy the US or the world economy (because liberals hate everything)
> ...


1) Ok , let's say scientists get rich, it still brings the question of why give money to the scientists, there must be an ulterior motive.
2) wtf? to what end? self anihilation? 
3) Hmm , wearing rabbit fur loincloths, ah, that might have been a thing while I was in highschool. Live in caves? Hobbit style caves, count me in .


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 22, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?


Transfer of wealth, communism.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


*Goddamn, you have repeatedly been shown that was not the case. Most of the people involved in research during that period were predicting a warming. Those that weren't, were worried about the aerosols put into the air by industry. *

What 1970s science said about global cooling

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.





_Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers._

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how the climate operates.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...


LOL. Another brain dead 'Conservative'. Answer to any question, Communism. Check under the bed tonight, Comrade, Putin may be hiding there.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Got 70 years of Leftard worship of communism to validate it.  You have wet dreams of it.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 22, 2015)

bear513 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...


No , I will keep the warming adjective, since the overall effect of methane and co2 is warming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2015)

Too Funny:

The alarmists think they can just spew their crap and everyone would believe them... Old Fraud posts the same crap over and over expecting a different result.

Their models are broken and fail 100% of the time..
Their predictions have failed  over and over again..
The satellite data  and US-CRN data shows their adjustments fraud..

It is a hoax designed to take freedoms away and assert power over the US and world populace, GLOBAL GOVERNANCE under SOCIALIST CONTROL..  It always has been..


----------



## westwall (Nov 22, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?










The two most simple reasons ever....money and power.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 22, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...



Transfer of wealth and communism are two VERY different things. 
Did you know in the XIX century the US government engaged in one of the largest welfare programs in history by handing out land to anyone who worked on it ? 

That said, I would rather like to know how installing a couple of pannels and a solar heater in a roof and using a 100 mpg vehicle brings any country closer to communism.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...


Westwall, your explanation seems oversimplified, please ellaborate.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 22, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Too Funny:
> 
> The alarmists think they can just spew their crap and everyone would believe them... Old Fraud posts the same crap over and over expecting a different result.
> 
> ...


Keeping the spirit of the OP: 

Their models are broken and fail 100% of the time.. : Ok , assumed as true
Their predictions have failed  over and over again.. : Ok , assumed as true
The satellite data  and US-CRN data shows their adjustments fraud.. : ok , assumed as true

So , just ellaborate on your final phrase:
"It is a hoax designed to take freedoms away and assert power over the US and world populace, GLOBAL GOVERNANCE under SOCIALIST CONTROL."
How will freedoms be taken away ? 
Who will assert power over the US and world populace ? 
Who will be in charge of the global governance under socialist control ? Which country would be orchestrating this ?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Old Rocks, 
  For once I will ask of you for the sake of discussion (as hard as it may be ) to assume AGW is a hoax. 
  I am interested in learning from the mindset of those who so fiercely oppose the AGW theory.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 22, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


I know it's two different things, that's why each is listed.
Manmade global warming is not about adding some solar panels.  Leftard Calif has changed all of the regulations to kill new solar.  
It's about taking money from those who have it and the government taking control of every aspect of our citizens.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 22, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Transfer of wealth and communism are two VERY different things.
> 
> No it is not when it regards a turd party (statists) taking some or all the profits of an individual against his best interests or their will, and giving any or all of the sum to someone who has either failed or never really attempted to create a profit of their own. Charity is a matter of will, and an honest person will only accept it if they feel they've earned it.
> 
> ...



The agenda of the GW cult is to marginalize the economy and enrich non-productive bureaucrooks. Commies are non productive bureaucrooks. Who cares what they call themselves?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 22, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


... I am thinking the oposite, if you own a big enough piece of land ( 5,000 sq foot) and are thus able to generate and store your own energy you are less dependent on both corporations and the government. 

Perhaps it is not the clean home made energy production and storage what wories you, but something else. 
What is it exactly ?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 22, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Like I said, which you ignore, is Democrats are trying to kill new solar.  From saying it will kill turtles to eliminating all incentives to taxing solar users, the so called green people hate solar.


----------



## westwall (Nov 22, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...








Goldman Sachs, The Koch Brothers, The World Bank Group, and a whole host of other financial groups have invested millions into the climate change meme.  All with the desire to reap huge profits for the privilege of shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other.  The IPCC estimates it will cost 76 trillion dollars to change the worlds system of energy production to a green one.  All of those financial groups will be payed enormous sums of money to do it.

Politicians and governments are using the climate change meme to take ever more control over how people live, work, travel (or not as the case may be) with the eventual desire to have all of the peons of the world living in apartments of around 600 square feet stacked one atop he other to reduce the human footprint on the planet.  The wealthy though will of course still be allowed to enjoy the beauty of the wild and better yet they won't have any of those pesky poor people around to annoy them.


----------



## westwall (Nov 22, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...








CC, let me ask you something.  What makes you think that the theory of AGW is factual?  What empirical evidence is there to support it?


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 22, 2015)

Reminds me of this


----------



## westwall (Nov 22, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Reminds me of this










What's funny, and sad that you don't understand it, is every one of those other things that are legitimate concerns (such as rainforest degradation, water pollution, toxic waste dumps, contaminated food etc.) CAN'T be dealt with because the bureaucrats and rich corporations are taking the money that could be used to fix those issues, and pissing them away in the vain hope that we can lower the global temp by one degree in 100 years.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



*Goldman Sachs, The Koch Brothers, The World Bank Group, and a whole host of other financial groups have invested millions into the climate change meme.  All with the desire to reap huge profits for the privilege of shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other.  The IPCC estimates it will cost 76 trillion dollars to change the worlds system of energy production to a green one.  All of those financial groups will be payed enormous sums of money to do it.*
An acceptable argument, but then, isn't that capitalism's goal : invest to reap billions ? 
Except the part where you state : shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other, true, it does seem like a huge effort to get to the same point, unless it is done at the right pace : some energy plants have to be decomissioned as they get old.
I understand this part and it seems a valid concern. 

*Politicians and governments are using the climate change meme to take ever more control over how people live, work, travel (or not as the case may be) with the eventual desire to have all of the peons of the world living in apartments of around 600 square feet stacked one atop he other to reduce the human footprint on the planet.  The wealthy though will of course still be allowed to enjoy the beauty of the wild and better yet they won't have any of those pesky poor people around to annoy them*
Ah , and here we go again : this 
*"take ever more control over how people live, work , travel" *
No , I don't think this is related to AGW and green technologies. 
and then
*"with the eventual desire to have all of the peons of the world living in apartments of around 600 square feet stacked one atop the other to reduce the human footprint on the planet".*
Manhatan or Hong-kong style appartment buildings ? My point of view is that this is a byproduct of speculation on housing and real estate in general and is unrelated to AGW. Also , modern buildings are not particularly green : they need an elevator which becomes an energy hog after the 10th floor and there is no way to make them energy independent: I've done my calculations : a 4 person household needs at least 4,000 sq foot of land to be energy independent, and that is assuming you get a 100+ mpg car. So , I might not agree with you on the AGW, but I will agree with you on this: anyone who tells me that I should live in a crammed appartment with little space and no greenery should get the middle finger.


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...









No, the use of government to pass laws that benefit your corporation and punish the middle class and poor is the very definition of fascism, not capitalism.

Here you go.  "Passive" houses.  The new "sustainable" designs.  The thinking being that to counter the overpopulation non problem you must squish mankind into small footprints.  


Passivhaus Institut


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



But then the same can be said about oil companies , specially those engaging in fracking and tar sands and those ripping the artificial benefits of zirp (zero interest rate policy ) . Yes it is a form of  fascism, but its only the name of the company that changes not the actual fascist policy.

Regarding the designs the one in the upper picture doesn't quite convince me.
The one in the lower picture looks interesting though... or are there two views of the same design ? Ok, five floors is a no go for me.
Ah, and I must correct my figure : 600 sq feet of land are enough for a househould of four ( think of a two flor house for a total of 1200 ft2 of living space), that's about the minimum, you can have three or four story buildings but that's about it. Anything higher simply stops you from achieving energy independence.


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> I think Otmar Edenhofer said it best... In an interview with Germany's NZZ reporter:
> 
> (EDENHOFER): *Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.* The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? 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.
> 
> ...



Your problem here is that this is what Edenhofer says is being done by the world's sovereign nations to keep carbon in the ground and out of the atmosphere.  He is NOT saying that this is the purpose or goal of the IPCC.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?



It's not a hoax. The hoax is that it's not deliberate to uncover oil reserves in the arctic. World desperately wants to get off middle east oil but unless it can make equal amounts available from elsewhere we're stuck dancing with the devil.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?



Follow the money trail and consider the political power to be gained...then ask yourself why you would ever ask such a question.   We are, after all, talking about trillions of dollars...amounts of money and political power that literally dwarf the money involved in the whole big tobacco and big oil claims.


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Reminds me of this
> ...


link?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...




Did West Elaborate?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?


Control 

The sole aim of government is to increase controls on the population


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...



Where does this money trail go?  And what political power is enough to turn a blind eye toward a cleaner earth?

I mean I have power and everything but the earth...You gotta be more specific.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?


money, food, prizes and I forgot, control


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


we need many scientist, as many as possible to agree with this so anyone requesting funding must agree with us or they get zero dollars.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


it doesn't, however, your two examples are failing falling flat on their face.  Why?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Too Funny:
> ...


seriously?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

Skull Pilot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...



Control of what?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


why?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 23, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Human behavior what else

Government has a long history of conducting ham handed social engineering experiments


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

I think the goal if its a Hoax is to do things that are vague.  Like control something and money to somewhere.  So far thats been the message.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

Skull Pilot said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Yeah, but not peeing in the drinking water is "control" too.  I'm asking to what end.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 23, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...





Climate change legislation is just another ruse to enrich those who will benefit from the legislation.  Why do you think Al Gore is so hopped up about it?  He stands to make a fortune.  If he really cared about the planet he would reduce his own rather large carbon footprint wouldn't he?

None of these idiots care about saving the planet in fact I think most just want to stick to the US and the rest of the developed world it's all a fraud


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

Skull Pilot said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




But that doesnt prove that its a hoax because someone would make money.  No one would say AIDS was fake because Pharma companies are going to make money.

Same thing.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 23, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Not really because governments didn't pass laws about sexual behavior and levy taxes and make sweetheart deals with pharma companies as they are doing with so climate change and so called green energy companies.


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...







The oil companies ARE playing in the green energy field.  Koch Bros. are heavily invested in bio fuels as an example.  They realize that normal jet fuel costs about 5 bucks a gallon, but just imagine how much better your profits can be when the government MANDATES that you use bio fuels that cost 35 dollars a gallon.  Corporations don't care how badly that hurts the middle class.  they just see the profits to be made by having their favorite politician pass laws that benefit THEM.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

Skull Pilot said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Thats because you cant pass laws on sexual behavior but you can create laws to say dont pee in the drinking water.  Thats a form of "control" and for good reason.

So far no one has said what this "control" will be and how its not worth a cleaner earth.


----------



## jillian (Nov 23, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Money



I suppose it might look that way if you're uneducated, uninformed and gubmint-hating


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

You give them an open forum and they cant even make the point, they just throw out scary words without explanation.

MONEY!
CONTROL!
COMMUNISM!


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Westwall, 
  I think we have VERY different views on what constitutes clean and renewable energy. 
  I am wary about biofuels; biofuels are only viable if : 
  a) You have a tropical country
  b) You use a high yield product like switchgrass ( still in research) or sugar cane. 
Using corn as biofuel is nonesense, period. 
 And my vision of green renewable energy tends to foucus more on achieving energy independence than on getting fuel from large corporations. So I guess we agree on this : corn biofuel is a hoax and a danger. 

By the by green houses should look like the ones on this link imo : 
4 Amazing Australian Eco Houses


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...








And yet, that is what our government is pushing.  Our government, thanks to corporate prodding is mandating that we do the exact opposite of what is beneficial for the people of this country.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Hmm "taking money from those who have it" is a very broad argument. 
I have money, and it is being taken away by zirp, so there is little incentive to save it in the bank and more to speculate in the bank. 
Also zirp transfers wealth from small savers to big companies who are able to get free money. 
Government takes away money from almost everyone ( VAT , income tax, corporate tax , duties ) . 
When I get paid I take money from those who have it : my employers. 
My point being that your argument is to broad , so you should ellaborate on how green energy will take money from those who have it.


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

jillian said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Money
> ...









Not entirely true.  Normal jet fuel costs 5 bucks.  Bio fuel, which the government wants to mandate the airlines use and which Virgin's owner Branson is heavily invested in, costs 35 bucks a gallon.  So yeah, it is about money,....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?



Redistribute wealth, just as IPCC told us


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...








But the attack is broad based.  If the government were to go to the middle class and say we're going to take half of your wages they would revolt.  But, if the government says we're going to take this, and the next government entity says we're going to take that, and the next government entity says you have to pay this to remove that, and then the various companies say we have to charge you more for this because that government entity says we have to do this now, and it becomes very clear that government is becoming ever more intrusive, and impoverishing the middle class while the one percenters are laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


no, what makes it a hoax is the lack of any factual information that backs any of the debate.  Please, feel free to post up the experiment that proves that 20 PPM of CO2 is dangerous.  Anytime, I've been waiting on here for two years now.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Nov 23, 2015)

jillian said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Money
> ...



Or I see it for what it is...a money grabbing agenda hoax.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...


and there is this^^^^^^


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


dude seriously again.  what is it you simply don't get?  Have you heard of subsidies?  Do you know what happens when subsidies run out?  Where does the pool of money come from afterward?  Do you have a guess?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Ok , the thread is not about that, anyway: the evidence I have is the amount of ice melted from glaciers globaly. 
If you have any high peaks near you you should be able to check how glaciars are diminishing, and make sure that is not a hoax.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



And all that water went? I just googled Miami. 

Psssssst...... It's still there


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...





























Here's a map that shows how 90% of the glacier retreat was before the year 1900.  It has occurred because of the end of the Little Ice Age which witnessed the wholesale advance of glaciers worldwide.  During the MWP there is good evidence that there was no Arctic ice.  We haven't even come close to that level of ice retreat.  And in fact are witnessing glaciers beginning to advance again.  Not universally, but the trend has started.

http:// http://


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Yes, they take many forms : zirp, corn subsides, fiscal loopholes, fiscal paradises.
But as I said before , green energy should recieve no subsidies , just as nor fracking , nor tar sands should receive one. 
I don't believe in markets magic, but if prices are higher , probably a big part of that cost is energy, if the price is higher its probably because the net energy gain is not good enough. 
What I do think is people should make a conscious effort to spend less fuel when that option becomes available. The option might not be what we expect : the Elio car is  a two seater, many will not like it , but the truth is vehicle occupancy is about 1.5 passengers in the average . Wikispeed is a 100+ mpg vehicle, not yet ready , no harm done in using such a vehicle. See my point ?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


dude, you do and buy whatever the fk you want.  Don't tell me, or expect me to do what you want to do.  It's being an ass and a rather ugly ass at that.  But you keep thinking you're making a difference when you're not.  What a waste of fking air.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Indeed , he did. He talked about biofuel, subsidies , and some rather ugly small footprint tenments.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Then we should not by wary of whether AWG is a hoax or not, but rather on which measures are put in place to combat it.
Do they give you higher quality of life ? Do they give you more independence or make you more dependent on government and corporations? 
Anyway, we might not share the viewpoints, but I do appreciate that you have engaged in a discussion and have not falled into trolling.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


So ,  you get less water in the glaciers and the rivers in the region diminish their flow. Ever heard of California ?
By the by Miami is not known for its glaciars.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



And the water went?  Mars?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


  Part of it went into the sea, part went underground and part into the atmosphere. The point here is that for some regions less sweet water is available.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


_*The point here is that for some regions less sweet water is available.*_

huh?  based on what?


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...









Here we are in agreement.  The problem is the corporations pushing this agenda really don't care about the environment.  Have you noticed that not one single carbon tax scheme has a corresponding mandate to actually reduce pollution?  Not one.  You are fully free to pollute, you just have to pay the one percenters for the privilege.  There is no problem that we can't fix provided there is money to do it.  What is being proposed by the governments is a wholesale destruction of the economy of the world that will lead to an inability to tackle the very real pollution and other environmental needs of the peoples of this world.

I never resort to insults when the discussion is serious and respectful.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?



To push the left wing agenda. I can't see how that is hard to see or understand.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Done trolling ?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


what is it I am supposedly trolling? Your artificial posts of stupidity?  Perhaps you should stick to your OP.  You still haven't answered the questions I asked back a few posts ago.  Hoax?  You know there is one, or you wouldn't have started this dumb fk thread.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

PredFan said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...


But then the question is WHAT specific point of the agenda will be pursued and how AGW will help pursue them.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 23, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



The thing is we have been reducing emissions already it's just a natural form of progress as processes become more efficient

And the controls will be in the form of taxes and huge money grabs all in the name of saving the planet,

The funny thing is all you save the earth types always say no to the one thing that will provide abundant emission free power; nuclear


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


What ?
1) Asking where did glaciar water went ... kind of obvious, isn't it ?
2) Asking the basis for my previous statement : that melting glaciers diminish the amount of water available in the region.
Now , if you didn't learn the hydrological cycle in highschool , it is not my fault , but just stop trolling .
Evenmore this is all unrelated to my OP, or the rather civilized discussion I was having with WestWall.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


however, you are on a message board and not have a private conversation.  And you are trolling by posting the OP.  either you do or you don't believe in a hoax.  What say you?

There is water underground, always has been except in most desert regions.  Second, you have to have evidence that glaciers are gone.  You have zip on that.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?





> Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?



To push a political agenda to introduce more taxation, more regulations, and more government control all in the name of "_saving the planet_".


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> what is it I am supposedly trolling?



This thread you dubious asshole


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

Skull Pilot said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Reducing emissions is a good thing, right?

How do these money grabs happen?  The answer is you don't know but it sounds scarey.


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...








I think it's quite obvious ....don't you?  The specific point is maximum government control.  They have basically told you this already.  The general public is not to be trusted to manage their lives so in the interest of saving the planet (which the propagandists go to great pains to show every single day) the freedom of the people to live their lives and do as they wish must be severely curtailed.  How many middle class people do you think will be able to travel overseas when the cost to fly coach jumps up to 5,000 a ticket to pay for the bio fuel used to fly those planes?

Every utterance of the powers that be is an order to spend less, travel less, produce less, live a sustainable life (which is in the long run never sustainable.  Every civilization that has merely been sustainable existed till the first natural disaster and then lo and behold those sustainable countries....weren't.


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...










Yes, reducing pollution (not CO2 though, which is plant food) is always a good thing.  How about we work on that.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

Control!

Control what?

Controlling...control!


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Well, won't someone make money from that?  I understand that if someone makes money is a hoax.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



That is easy as well.

1. Electing Democrats. Villainize the GOP for opposing it, create panic and worry over AGW, tell the sheeple that only electing Democrats will prevent DOOM.
2. Take control over people's lives, tell them what they can and cannot do or eat.
3. Taxes taxes taxes.
4. Damage oil and coal industries, promote "green" industries.
5. Appease major factions of the Democrat Party; environmentalists, Animal Activists, etc.

Mostly #1 and #2.


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Control!
> 
> Control what?
> 
> Controlling...control!








Oh please.  Don't eat red meat because the cows fart etc.  Get a fricking clue dude.....  Please note the usage of the word penance.  If ever you needed a clue that these people are religious fanatics there you go....





1. *Make climate-conscious political decisions*. Some commentators said that the 2007 Australian Federal election was the first to be strongly influenced by the stance made by competing political parties on climate change. Regardless of how true this may be, it is obvious that the strong and urgent action needed to combat climate change will require a healthy dose of political will, and the courage to make tough choices. This willpower comes from voters, who consistently demand real action and can see through ‘greenwashing’ (pretend ‘solutions’ and half-measures that do not do the job). Climate change should be a totally non-partisan issue since it affects all people and all countries. If climate change is not perceived by both sides of politics as a ‘core issue’, it will inevitably be marginalised by apparently more immediate concerns. So assess policies clearly, and make your vote count towards real climate solutions – each and every election. This is the only way a global solution can be put in place, in time.

2. *Eat less red meat*. Traditional red meat comes from ruminant livestock such as cattle and sheep. These animals produce large amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas that packs 72 times the punch of CO2 over a 20 year period. Other types of meat, such as chicken, pork or kangaroo, produce far less emissions. At average levels of consumption, a family’s emissions from beef would easily outweigh the construction and running costs of a large 4WD vehicle, in less than 5 years. There is no need to cut out red meat entirely, but fewer steaks and snags mean far less CO2.

3. *Purchase “green electricity“*

4. *Make your home and household energy efficient.*

5. *Buy energy and water efficient appliances.* 

6. *Walk, cycle or take public transport.* 

7. *Recycle, re-use and avoid useless purchases.* We throw too much away and still re-cycle too little of what we must discard. Large amounts of energy and water go into producing endless amounts of ‘stuff’, much of which we don’t really need or end up using. So be sure to use your local recycling service, for plastics, metals and paper. Try to get appliances and tools fixed rather than replaced – the carbon footprint of fixing things is far lower than making them from scratch. Avoid the temptation to buy useless trinkets and knick-knacks, just because it feels good to accumulate things. There are limits to everything, including, most importantly, the ability of the planet to supply people with an ever burgeoning supply of raw materials. Think sustainability.

8. *Telecommute and teleconference.* 

9. *Buy local produce.* 

10. *Offset what you can’t save.* Avoiding the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, in the ways described above, is by far the best and most direct way or reducing our climate change impact. Yet some emissions are unavoidable. For those, offsetting is a worthwhile option. This is done by purchasing ‘carbon credits’ from accredited companies which offer this service, who will then invest those dollars in (for instance) renewable energy projects or planting trees. Carbon offsets should definitely not be seen as the solution, or as a relatively pain-free way to expel your carbon guilt. There is nowhere near enough offsetting potential in the world for this to be an option for most of the world’s population. But in conjunction with other methods of kicking the CO2 habit, offsets can help make a difference and* allow you to pay a small penance*.



Top 10 ways to reduce your CO2 emissions footprint


----------



## PredFan (Nov 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Glaciers advance and recede, have been for eons.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

Control!

What control?

Controlling control!


----------



## PredFan (Nov 23, 2015)

Me, I try to increase my Carbon Footprint as much as possible. Including farting a lot.


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...









I have no problem with people making money so long as they don't use the power of government to legislate their competition out of existence.  Government should never be the determiner of which company is successful or not.  Government has a shitty track record of accomplishing anything well.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Control!
> ...



First yiu realize that it says eat LESS red meat, not that you can't eat it.

Second this isn't an edict or demand to eat less red meat. Know how I know, because I'm eating chili right now. And no one will ever stop cow birth or eating them.

To believe you won't be able to get a burger because of global warming is one of the sillier things I've heard.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Awesome, I agree. So tell these other wackos that making money from something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't real.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 23, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Awesome, I agree. So tell these other wackos that making money from something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't real.



Good "work" bed wetter, you've just earned a trophy for the most asinine response of the day.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I did not express miself correctly : what I meant is that the AWG is not really what matters, but rather the laws which empower the government and the large corporations ( specially those who engage in the revolving door ) . 

If a set of measures / technologies empower households with little market distortion they should be embraced. 
On the other hand one should be wary of measures wich achieve the oposite.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Awesome, I agree. So tell these other wackos that making money from something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't real.
> ...



Sad, that's all you got. Did you draw it yourself?


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...







We are in agreement.  The government though has a history of rewarding those who donate large sums the their re election campaigns.  Solyndra is an excellent case.  Far better would be for government to not be in a position to steal money from the public to pay their friends and the way to ensure that is to limit the power of government to regulate.


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...








tell that to the kids forced to eat the Michelle obama school lunches.  Your blind following does you no credit at all.  Nor does your profound ignorance of the facts, and the desires of the governments to MANDATE the rules that the website I provided merely suggests.


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2015)

Kids forced to eat healthier school lunches.  Reduced obesity.  Starting a lifetime of healthier diet choices.  God, that's awful.

You are just sssstttuuupppiiiddd beyond belief.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



School lunches have nothing to do with whether or not meat will be available for purchase. They still sell meat there anyway.

See, it's easy for you to throw on the towel and proclaim I'm ignorant of the facts. Except you aren't presenting facts. And when you do you say stuff like Stop eating read meat is the same as you CAN'T eat red meat.

Again, that's a suggestion. But if you think someday cows will be extinct you're stupid.


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> Kids forced to eat healthier school lunches.  Reduced obesity.  Starting a lifetime of healthier diet choices.  God, that's awful.
> 
> You are just sssstttuuupppiiiddd beyond belief.








Come again moron?  The point was that government is ordering people to do something against their will.  Thank you for reinforcing my point.  Idiot.


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...











It is the first step in the door, along with the various sin taxes and of course Bloomie deciding that soda pop is bad for people so they can't be allowed to buy Big Gulps.  Ignore the fact that they can just buy more so the net result is merely to raise the cost of their drinks.  I wonder how much stock Bloomie has in the various soda bottlers?  But, once again, my observation was that government was using the power of anti climate change legislation to force people to d things the way the government wants them too.  And you quite ably reinforced my point yet again.  You're not too bright are you...


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 23, 2015)

PredFan said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


1) The GOP is villanizing itself for not admitting global warming ( even without the anthropogenic part). And while we are far from being at a life or death situation there are clear signs of warming: just try to take a look at the glaciers, also , sea level seems to have risen about 10 cm in the last 40 years or so. Again this is not an immediate threat, but something to keep an eye on.

2) I think that's unrelated to AWG, specially in the US, where there is a clear tendency to overeating: mostly everyone can get whatever food he likes, even if it is a receipe for early diabetes. The "doing" part is even less clear to me. What is it that the government doesn't allow you to do which is not a criminal activity ? 

3) Taxes , yea , taxes are a pain in the ass. But the three bigest expenses are healthcare, defense and pensions, Both healthcare and defense can be optimized in many ways ( but discussing that would require a separate thread). Whatever grants or subsidies have been granted in renewables are not significant compared to healthcare and defense, so I find this argument weak.

4. Well, yes, they do get harmed , slightly , but so far the greatest harm has not come from green industry but from the Saudi kingdom. Many fracking companies are going south because of low oil prices, and the same goes for tar sands companies. You can't truly blame it on green industries.
  I don't like nuclear very much , but if I had to choose between nuclear and tar sands or fracking , I would pick up nuclear.
5. That seems a legitimate motive to me, not a perverse agenda.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 24, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



1) Bull shit. 100% bull shit.
2) You are wrong.
3) Deflection
4) No, they get harmed a lot.
5) of course it would seem like that to you. To destroy companies, cripple the economy, and lie to the American People, well that's a small price to pay for paying back DNC supporters isn't it?

You asked my for clarification, I gave it to you. You are a left wing nut, and an AGW cultist. Of course you disagree. All of your  points have been debunked many times over. I answered your question, good bye.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > what is it I am supposedly trolling?
> ...


what is it I'm supposedly trolling, your response is no answer.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Control!
> 
> Control what?
> 
> Controlling...control!


Control!!! spot on.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


why is anyone making the statement to eat less red meat?  What is the purpose?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> Kids forced to eat healthier school lunches.  Reduced obesity.  Starting a lifetime of healthier diet choices.  God, that's awful.
> 
> You are just sssstttuuupppiiiddd beyond belief.


who claims those are healthier meals?  so parents need someone to tell them they don't raise their children healthy, is that what you're saying?  Some government punk has better knowledge?  really, i challenge any meal you post up as healthy.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


I want the tax money back, the empirical evidence has never been provided.  So, the money made was spent badly and was abused by those cheating the tax payer.  So I want the money returned.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 24, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 24, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...








^ Scientific evidence collected over a 5 week period showing the Equatorial Rain Forest produce the most CO2.  The Warmers have Faith that my SUV is the culprit


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


so to summarize, it is only ok to have your point of view and any other falls short of discussion?  I see.  
how many folks care that a glacier is melting or not?  
Prove the fear there that is top on a list.  prove sea level rise, still not accomplished by anyone.


ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


dude I have asked and still no empirical evidence that human CO2 is dangerous.  Can you post something up that can refute my statement?  Just saying, Herr Koch in 1901 is the only experiment that proves it doesn't.  So feel free to post up the challenge experiment.

IPCC already stated the pause for 15 years in their AR5 report, ouch, that sucks for you there, the scientist and organization already documented that fact.  So CO2 went up, yet temperature did not.  Closes the page that CO2 drives temps.  Now please always feel free to post up any material that opposes the IPCC report.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

PredFan said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


and will as long as the earth rotates


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> Kids forced to eat healthier school lunches.  Reduced obesity.  Starting a lifetime of healthier diet choices.  God, that's awful.
> 
> You are just sssstttuuupppiiiddd beyond belief.


I know right? Obesity & related illnessness are the leading cause of admission to hospitals BUT he is against curtailing it because a Democrat suggested addressing it. He claims to be a Democrat too lol

As to the OP, one would think the deniers would be for repeal of Citizens United given all the spooky pronouncements of corporate control of gubmint.  They do have immense power (NRA, Koch Bros, etc...) but deniers don't want to do anything about it whilst simultaneously arguing their undue influence in this thread  .

Ask any denier here if they are for public funding of campaigns/campaign finance reform


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 24, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




I have a simple test for you to make you a believer.  Put a garden hose in your tailpipe and into your window.  Close all other windows and start up the car.

Then tell me if CO2 is dangerous...if you wake up


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 24, 2015)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Kids forced to eat healthier school lunches.  Reduced obesity.  Starting a lifetime of healthier diet choices.  God, that's awful.
> ...


The gov't doesn't give out free cigarettes in high schools for a reason. They can distribute things that are beneficial to one's health. See how that works?


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 24, 2015)

westwall said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You almost figured out what sin taxes are for.  I'll tell you- they disincentivize harmful behavior especially when it has a negative consequence on the population as a whole such as avoidable hospital admissions. Extreme amounts of sugar (like those present in a big gulp) lead to diabetes, diabetes leads to hospital admissions, hospitals admissions lead to ginormous unpaid bills that are foisted onto the taxpayer. See where I'm going w/ this? 

THINK!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


that isn't CO2 so perhaps you should learn science dumb fk.  Holy crap, you can't make this stuff up.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


i love dumb fks like you. there is no evidence that eating sugar leads to diabetes. fk you dumb fks have no clue.  I supposed you'll tell us that eating fat off of beef makes one fatter. too right?  hahahahhahahaha you fks have no fking clue at all.  Just believe the religion.  everyday on here, it is hysterical.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 24, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



CO2 doesnt come from your tailpipe?

You should tell that to CNET

CO2ube filters out carbon dioxide from your tailpipe - CNET


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


nope, it's carbon monoxide you should learn what a fossil fuel engine discharges.
BTW, we have monoxide monitors in our homes now.  see when fuel burns it discharges monoxide ,not dioxide.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 24, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




CO2 is not cardon dioxide?


----------



## westwall (Nov 24, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...









No, they don't.  They lead to black markets and the corresponding loss of income, and for those who can't afford the sin tax they resort to criminal activity to support their habit.  All one need do is look at the failed war on drugs, the failed war on alcohol from the 1930's and every other morality BS law that has ever been passed.  It is YOU who needs to think.  Historical fact tells us that sin taxes do nothing but harm the poor and incentivise crime.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


it says so right here thanks wikipedia:

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Excerpt:

*"Carbon dioxide* (chemical formula *CO2*) is a colorless, odorless gas vital to life on Earth. This naturally occurring chemical compound is composed of a carbon atom covalently double bonded to two oxygen atoms. Carbon dioxide exists in the Earth's atmosphere as a trace gas at a concentration of about 0.04 percent (400 ppm) by volume."

BTW, they don't claim it comes out a tailpipe.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

you should stop quoting yourself.  You come off not know chemical make up of burning fuel.

here dumb fk, more from wikipedia;
*
"Carbon monoxide* (*CO*) is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas that is slightly less dense than air. It is toxic to hemoglobic animals (including humans) when encountered in concentrations above about 35 ppm, although it is also produced in normal animal metabolism in low quantities, and is thought to have some normal biological functions. In the atmosphere, it is spatially variable and short lived, having a role in the formation of ground-level ozone."


----------



## mamooth (Nov 24, 2015)

Poor jc can't grasp that an IC engine produces both CO2 and CO, but mostly CO2. Hilarious. It's the most basic chemistry of all, but he flubs it. His logic actually assumes that if an engine produces CO, it can't produce CO2.

And back on page one, Pete posted a faked Time magazine cover.

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com

Pete, you might want to consider just why your leaders lied to you like that, and why you fell for it. But you won't. You'll run right back to the same people and beg for more lies, because that's what cultists do.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Poor jc can't grasp that an IC engine produces both CO2 and CO, but mostly CO2. Hilarious. It's the most basic chemistry of all, but he flubs it. His logic actually assumes that if an engine produces CO, it can't produce CO2.
> 
> And back on page one, Pete posted a faked Time magazine cover.
> 
> ...


nope, sorry ole confused one.  you're still confused.

here from wikipedia again:

"In 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency began to implement more stringent emissions standards for light duty vehicles. The requirements were phased in beginning with 2004 vehicles and all new cars and light trucks were required to meet the updated standards by the end of 2007.

United States Light-Duty Vehicle, Light-Duty Truck, and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle—Tier 2 Exhaust Emission Standards (for Bin 5)[10]
*Component* *Emission Rate* *Annual pollution emitted*
NMOG (Volatile organic compounds) 0.075  grams/mile (0.046 g/Km) 2.1 pounds (0.95 kg)
Carbon Monoxide 3.4 grams/mile (2.1 g/Km) 94 pounds (43 kg)
NO_X_ 0.05 grams/mile (0.0305 g/Km) 1.4 pounds (0.64 kg)
Formaldehyde 0.015 grams/mile (0.0092 g/Km) 0.41 pounds (0.19 kg)"


----------



## mamooth (Nov 24, 2015)

jc, everyone on your side wishes you'd be quiet and stop embarrassing them. It takes a special degree of stupid to declare that IC engines don't emit CO2.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 24, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Glaciers advance and recede all the time, ice melts in some areas, and it grows in others. Anyone who lives on the coast can attest that sea levels have not changed in any amount that is significant. I go to Cocoa Beach regularly and have been since I was a teen in the 70s. The water level there is EXACTLY the same as it was.

Man made global warming is a scam. No rational intelligent person believes in that nonsense.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, everyone on your side wishes you'd be quiet and stop embarrassing them. It takes a special degree of stupid to declare that IC engines don't emit CO2.



You are wrong. I am on his side, and I like what he is saying. Look at his last post.

How do you tolerate being wrong on everything all the time? I know I wouldn't tolerate it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2015)

PredFan said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


*Adapting to Global Warming

Abstract*
*Summary*


Although people often develop close to the coast, shorelines constantly change due to erosion, sedimentation, and sea level rise. During the last century, sea level has risen approximately 6-9 inches worldwide and 9 inches along the coast of East Central Florida. There is estimated to be a 90 percent probability of over a 1 foot rise in sea level by 2150 along the Florida coast. However, there is a 50 percent probability that this rise could be seen by the year 2075.

This study is the first comprehensive attempt to assess the likely response to sea level rise in East-Central Florida. The study area contains the (ocean) coastal areas of Brevard and Volusia counties, approximately 14.5 percent of the combined area of the two counties); We omitted the portion of these coasts counties along the St. John's River. According to the 2000 census, the population in the coastal census tracts is approximately 503,000 in 260,000 dwelling units. The coastal population is expected to grow to roughly 550,000 residents in 287,000 dwelling units by 2020. Major tourist destinations such as Daytona Beach, Cocoa Beach, and Melbourne Beach are included in the study area. Therefore, the effects of sea level rise will affect not only the residents, but may have a major effect on tourist destinations as well, which may result in dramatic effects on the economic well being of the counties. The study focused on the lowest 240 square miles, using a common mapping benchmark for defining low coastal land: the 10-foot contour. More than 141,000 acres of uplands and almost 96,000 acres of wetlands are in this area and would be directly affected by a continued rise in sea level. Wetlands and water comprise 65% of the study area.

In Volusia County, the majority of coastal lands are developed and almost certain to be protected. Nevertheless, there is a substantial amount of preserve areas along both sides of the lagoon at the northern and southern ends of the county, as well as the middle of county along Sebastian Inlet. At the northern end of the county there are also three forested islands that are not formally part of a preserve but whose development would be difficult and hence shore protection is unlikely. And at the southern end of the county, there are some low-lying agricultural lands where coastal development with planned low and moderate density, with wetlands situated around them and hence shore protection are unlikely, .as well as an even greater area of undeveloped land where development is expected but not necessarily inevitable.

Regionwide, land in which shore protection is almost certain accounts for 65,000 acres (102 square miles), 15% of the study area. Single family residential lands account for 46,000 acres. The maps show that for all practical purposes, past and planned development have already made it inevitable that property will be protected and the inland migration of wetlands will be blocked and eventually eliminated along 30% of Brevard and 60% of Volusia County shores. Existing conservation lands, however, ensure that wetlands will be able to adjust to rising sea level along the shores of about 45% and 15% of the two counties, respectively. Perhaps most importantly, we still have a realistic opportunity to choose between wetland migration and coastal development for approximately 25% of the land in each county. (See the summary table).

Brevard and Volusia coastline is an important ecological and economical resource for the region and state. Land use is a state and local responsibility and decisions should be made concerning the protection of developed and undeveloped land before it becomes too expensive or impossible to protect the shoreline and property. The counties and cities are presented, through this study, with options for decision making concerning land use and the protection of common infrastructure, property, resources, and the economic base of the community from sea level rise. In some cases, it is reasonable to wait and respond as the sea rises. However, infrastructure changes may require a lead time of a few decades, and land use decisions last centuries. If we want to preserve more than half of our coastal environment as sea level rises, policies should be developed to ensure such a preservation before the remainder of our coastal zone is developed. Doing so need not impair property values; but a failure to act soon would preclude opportunities to preserve the coastal environment in a cost-effective manner.

*LOL. Predfan, you are definately showing us what a dumb ass you are. A measured 9" rise is significant on a very flat beach.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2015)

PredFan said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc, everyone on your side wishes you'd be quiet and stop embarrassing them. It takes a special degree of stupid to declare that IC engines don't emit CO2.
> ...


Good God, You are a special kind of stupid. The primary product of any hydrocarbon burned with air is CO2.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 24, 2015)

PredFan said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Well , I can only say I am astounded by the strength and elloquence of your arguments. 
Farewell


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 24, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Glaciers advance and recede all the time, ice melts in some areas, and it grows in others. Anyone who lives on the coast can attest that sea levels have not changed in any amount that is significant. I go to Cocoa Beach regularly and have been since I was a teen in the 70s. The water level there is EXACTLY the same as it was.
> 
> Man made global warming is a scam. No rational intelligent person believes in that nonsense.









I'm surprised it took this long for bed wetters to go beyond the (correct) assumption that AGW is bullshit, to discuss the reason why someone would create the hoax. They weren't really interested in that anyway, they simply wanted to insist their fantasy world is real, and the rest of us are racists because we reject their moonbat messiah's agenda to shut down the coal industry. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't a vapid parasite why someone would try to scam the world.

Well duh...

For the same reason anyone comes up with a hoax...

For personal gain, whether it's money, power or just to get their rocks off.

So now we are back to arguing with fish tanks about the moonbat sacrament of envirobullshit. 

I applaud those of you who continue to waste time with these mindless zealots. However you can not "change their minds", they're mindless. They have no cognitive capacity. 

If they had a single synapse of independent thinking capability the fact that there have been numerous ice ages of variable degrees before there were MAMMALS, let alone humans with industrial infrastructure, and that all of these ice ages ended with warming that could only have been caused naturally they might come to a different conclusion.

Lacking that single synapse, they will never conclude that humans have no ability to change the climate if we wanted to.

Lets even imagine we did develop technology that could change the temperature of the earth.

Ever see "The Colony"?

That's what would happen.

So let the bed wetters drive those ugly little piece of shit "Smart" cars and sit in their echo chambers where they assure each other how brilliant and "educated" they are while sipping lattes. As long as we continue to prove MMGW is a bullshit scam to everyone who does have critical thinking skills, the moonbats can keep buying carbon credits from algore.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Hey pete, you are one idiotic ass. So the whole of the scientific community is in on a hoax. From every culture, political system, and nation in the world. Only you 'Conservatives' know the truth. You are so sure of that with your third grade education. Ignorant, willfully so, and proud of it, that is the credo of asses like you.




Your premise is bullshit bed wetter, the "whole of the scientific community" doesn't advance the hoax. Just the assholes of the scientific community that libtards pretend represent %97 of the community.

Weapons grade stupid describes you perfectly. You have no answers as to how or why ice ages came and went, you just cling to your programming like the loyal little zealot you are, convinced everyone who isn't brainwashed like you is ignorant.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 24, 2015)

Pete, are you ever going to apologize for posting that fake Time Magazine cover?

You lied to the board Pete, and got caught. What's your excuse? Was your deception deliberate, or were you just doing that "brainless cult piss-guzzler" thing you do so often?

Given how you lied about that and aren't the least bit sorry about doing so, why shouldn't everyone now assume everything you say is a lie?

The two sides here aren't even remotely alike in the honesty department. The rational people are honest, while most of the deniers lie loudly and proudly, and will keep repeating the same lie even after it's been debunked many times.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Pete, are you ever going to apologize for posting that fake Time Magazine cover?
> 
> You lied to the board Pete, and got caught. What's your excuse? Was your deception deliberate, or were you just doing that "brainless cult piss-guzzler" thing you do so often?
> 
> ...


fake?  fake?  how can that be, you need a confession. You have someone from Time Magazine saying it was faked?  ahahahhhhhhhhhahahhhahahahahahahah felll on floor again damn it, hhahahaahahahahahahaha


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Pete, are you ever going to apologize for posting that fake Time Magazine cover?
> 
> You lied to the board Pete, and got caught. What's your excuse? Was your deception deliberate, or were you just doing that "brainless cult piss-guzzler" thing you do so often?
> 
> ...



I didn't fake anything bed wetter.

LINK

And there's this...

From the WSJ



> _From Time magazine, June 24, 1974:_
> 
> 
> 
> As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing.



So go fuck yourself with that stupid cat.

Your entire political philosophy is based on lies and fairy tales moonbat.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 24, 2015)

Pete, Time Magazine itself says you posted a fake, with the evidence showing how it was faked.

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com











You now know you posted a fake, but instead of admitting your mistake, you double down on the big lie.

You can't use the excuse any more that you're just a brainless rube. You're proudly lying deliberately now, and you don't care who knows. Thus, everyone should always initially assume everything you say is a lie, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> Kids forced to eat healthier school lunches.  Reduced obesity.  Starting a lifetime of healthier diet choices.  God, that's awful.



Except childhood obesity is on the rise...

Severe childhood obesity on the rise in U.S., study shows
Many health problems are associated with children’s diets
WHO | Childhood overweight and obesity
US obesity rates on the rise: 113 million by 2022
Obesity Still on the Rise Among Americans, With Women Overtaking Men

and on and on....clearly the measures you claim are so great are not working...more feel good lip service which doesn't deliver squat but cost a great deal of money.  Its the liberal way.



Crick said:


> You are just sssstttuuupppiiiddd beyond belief.



You are as gullible as the come....which is a shining hallmark of stupid..


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Pete, Time Magazine itself says you posted a fake, with the evidence showing how it was faked.
> 
> Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com
> 
> ...


funny he admitted that they did a story on global cooling.  too funny here:

"and one that’s often misunderstood by skeptics. Call it the Ice Age Fallacy. Skeptics argue that back in the 1970s both popular media and some scientists were far more worried about global cooling than they were about global warming. For some reason a _Newsweek _article on the next ice age, published back in 1975, gets a lot of the attention, _*though TIME did a version of the story,*_ as did a number of other media outlets. The rationale goes this way: the fact that scientists were once supposedly so concerned about global cooling, which didn’t come true, just shows that we shouldn’t worry about the new fears of climate change."

Hey Skooks, spent a lot of time on the floor today laughing my balls off.  you just can't write this kind of stuff.  I mean, dude, they post up stuff that debunks their own story.  How frikn funny is that?  They ask for confessions and you give them the confession and they say none have been posted.  What kind of nut jobs on here? ones that make me laugh so hard I fall on the floor.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 24, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> I'm surprised it took this long for bed wetters to go beyond the (correct) assumption that AGW is bullshit, to discuss the reason why someone would create the hoax. They weren't really interested in that anyway, they simply wanted to insist their fantasy world is real, and the rest of us are racists because we reject their moonbat messiah's agenda to shut down the coal industry. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't a vapid parasite why someone would try to scam the world.


  I remain open to the discussion of the OP, it just happened that the last person discussing the topic ( the one with a green witch avatar) had the argumentative power of a dimwit, so I stopped discussing with him/her. 
  If you want to retake on the possible causes and consequences of the AWG-as-a-hoax you are most welcome. I actually had a good debate with WestWall and surprisingly we ended up agreeing on many important points ( though not on the AWG itself, which is kind of irrelevant given the nature of the OP ).


----------



## PredFan (Nov 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No dumbass, just because you post a lie, doesn't make me wrong. Yes of course the shore changes the beach advances and recedes, but piers don't move and neither do sea walls. Neither do the intercostal waterways, or the docks and launches.

Your brain is as small as your thinking. That is why you are stupid enough to believe that garbage. How you can be so stupid and still use a computer is a mystery.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 25, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Pete, Time Magazine itself says you posted a fake, with the evidence showing how it was faked.
> 
> Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com
> 
> ...



Dam Pete, how was the view when mammoth took yiu to the woodshed?


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> I remain open to the discussion of the OP, it just happened that the last person discussing the topic ( the one with a green witch avatar) had the argumentative power of a dimwit, so I stopped discussing with him/her.
> If you want to retake on the possible causes and consequences of the AWG-as-a-hoax you are most welcome. I actually had a good debate with WestWall and surprisingly we ended up agreeing on many important points ( though not on the AWG itself, which is kind of irrelevant given the nature of the OP ).



Well as it has been said, the purpose of any hoax would be for self aggrandizement. 

These so called "experts", scientists according to liberals, have data they use to scare people into believing human beings and their prosperous lifestyles are causing a problem that only government can solve through regulations, taxes and massive pork projects that usually fail to achieve anything.  These "scientists" receive huge funding grants for more "research", government gets empowered and grows larger, and crony corporations build shit like windmills and solar panels and even sometimes go bankrupt after being subsidized to the tune of $535,000,000.

Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post

A half a billion dollars alone could enrich a whole lot of people, and that is a pittance. It doesn't even register on the radar when considering all of the incredible sums of money the government has dumped into the gaping maw of environazi alarmists. That half a billion dollars was wasted on just one company, and there are many other examples of such waste.

Lets just imagine for a second that Bush or some other republicrat administration soaked the tax payer for $500 million that was given to a corporation that went tits up. Democrooks would have been howling for investigations, impeachment and prison sentences, but in this case...


Why?

Because criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths, their friends and donors are getting rich. Liberals are always pissing and moaning about rich corporations screwing the public and getting rich through fraud. Here's was stark glaring example but I have yet to see the occutards shitting all over the WH lawn over it.

You also need to consider the fact that the most prominent MMGW snake oil salesmen are doing the exact opposite of what they're telling the rest of us to do. They might throw a couple solar panels on their houses, but they're flying all over the world, using more energy as individuals than some small towns and demanding the rest of us shut off our AC. If that doesn't make it blatantly clear they themselves don't believe the bullshit they're promoting I don't know what does. The fact they're getting richer while doing so should be proof enough to you what the agenda is. If you can't see it, I don't know what else on earth can prove it to you. Jesus Christ Himself could come down from the clouds and tell you to your face and you'd respond with some shit about Him being corrupted by the oil industry.

You've been rather polite and I appreciate it, but I stand with my contention that liberals are mindless zealots completely lacking in cognitive capacity.

Now just so you know, in my early to late teens I believed in all the MMGW horse shit. I used to put up flyers and posters in school urging people to use less energy, less paper and that marijuana could save the environment if we used it for industry.

I woke up.

I still smoked the shit, but it finally occurred to me that if pot was useful for anything other than making TV tolerable, companies would use it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Your science is nothing more than a wild ass guess..  broken models... Failed prediction stages... So even your guess is worse than a pile of crap...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.



Can you provide one piece of empirical evidence that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in warming?  Here is a hint...there is none which means that there is no empirical evidence to support the most fundamental claim of the AGW hypothesis....what sort of science has no empirical evidence to support the very cornerstone of their hypothesis?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?



Under that assumption, it becomes the history's dumbest conspiracy for world domination ever conceived.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 25, 2015)

SSDD said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.
> ...




All the scientists say so!!!


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?


Population control by billionaire hedge funders and elitists.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 25, 2015)

From 1984:



> "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were- cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?"


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 25, 2015)

SSDD said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.
> ...



If science isn't good enough then can you tell me well I'm supposed to choose from as proof?

Yanno, something more reliable than science like a ouija board maybe?  Or a magic 8 ball?

This is like saying prove that 2 plus 2 equals 4 but here's the catch, you can't use numbers or math. Lol


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 25, 2015)

This guy is quoting movie scripts lmao!


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...








Actually it is one of the most insidious ever devised.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> This guy is quoting movie scripts lmao!




1984 is a book you sniveling twit.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...








Science IS good enough.  Climatologists are NOT pursuing science however.  They are ignoring the scientific method and perverting science to promulgate a political goal.  One that you approve of so ignore the fraud occurring right before your very eyes.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> This guy is quoting movie scripts lmao!








It' one of the most erudite books ever written about political ideology, and it was written by an avowed socialist.  Dummy.


----------



## Treeshepherd (Nov 25, 2015)

Every government agency and every university department seeks to justify and hopefully increase its annual budget.

Climate science is inextricably linked to funding. Now, even the Pentagon is getting in on the feast- they adopted the rationale that climate change is causing global instability in their last few budget requests. 

On campus, typically you'll have one or two tenured professors in a department. Depending on the amount of funding, you'll have a number of additional researchers who are not tenured (they can be let go any time). If interest in the importance of the science wanes, that funding will be shifted to another department. So if you're a PHD student and you write about global warming as mostly a natural oscillation between ice age and interglacial maximum, you're threatening people's jobs.


----------



## Votto (Nov 25, 2015)

What is the purpose of the hoax?  Why degrowth, of course.

This is the phrase coined by Mark Levin in his new book "Plunder and Deceit". The term "Degrowth Movement" describes what the environmentalist movement has become, or perhaps always was about.

For example,, in a recent interview fanatical anticapitalist and climate activist Naomi Klein proclaimed that "Capitalism increasingly is a discredited system because it is seen as a system that venerates greed above all else. There is a benefit to climate discussion to name a system that lots of people already have problems with for other reasons. I don't know why it is important to save capitalism. It is a pretty battered brand. Just focusing on climate is getting us nowhere. Many, many more people recognize the need to change our economy. If climate can be our lens to catalyze this economic transformation that so many people need for other even more pressing reasons then that may be a winning combination. This economic system is failing the vast majority of people. Capitalism is also waging war on the planet's life support system."

Even though these "Progressives" are really "Regressive" in their pursuit to send society back to the days of horse and buggy, they are still referred to as Progressives. In fact, they define their agenda as follows: "Sustainable degrowth is a downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well being and enhances ecological conditions and equity on the planet. It calls for a future where societies live within their ecological means, with open localized economies and resources more equally distributed through new forms of democratic institutions. It is an essential economic strategy to pursue in overdeveloped country like the US, for well being of the planet, of underdeveloped pupulations, and yes, even of the sick, stressed, and overweight consumer populations of overdeveloped countries."

French economist and leading degrowther Serge Latouche asserts that, "We are currently witnessing the steady commercialization of everything in the world. Applied to every domain in this way, capitalism cannot help but destroy the planet much as it destroys society, since the very idea of the market depends on unlimited excess and domination." Serge also abhors economic growth and wealth creation, the very attributes necessary to improve the human condition and societies: "A society based on economic contraction cannot exist under capitalism."

Indeed, on July 18, 2014, scores of extreme groups throughout the world endorsed a proclamation titled "Margarita Declaration on Climate Change" (which means "changing the system not the climate"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> This guy is quoting movie scripts lmao!



You do  know 1984 was a book before it was a movie, right?


----------



## Votto (Nov 25, 2015)

Globalists desire two things, more power over the populace and more control over reducing the numbers being born.

They want complete control over natural resources that they view are being threatened by growing population levels, and they feel threatened with growing numbers of people that become harder and harder to control.

The goal then is degrowth.  To do this they must attack the forces that cause prosperity, namely free trade which translates into dictating what you are free to do and not to do.  They want to tell you if you make too much money or tell you not to work because you are not making enough money.  They want to tell you that you must buy health care insurance and laugh as health care rates continue to increase year after year.

They want us living in smaller homes, driving smaller cars, taking public transportation, having fewer children, having less money to spend, etc.

This helps explain why fiscal policy seems so insane in the US.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?



Duh.  Look at what "they" demand in the name of the bogus claim about AGW.

There's your answer.

Want a one word label?

Socialism.


----------



## Votto (Nov 25, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...


 
They don't want socialism.  They just are attracted to socialist policy because it does two things, it decreases personal freedom and retards the economy.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


right?  why do these libs do that?  I don't get it. To use the magic 8 ball to put figures in a graph.  You think they all party with Chuck Manson while doing it?

So when they go to court and they can't produce their data, they know the only thing they need to protect is magic 8 ball.

Hoax, hell no.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 25, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



They produce data and your only response is "that don't count". Like I said it's like asking for a math solution after saying math and numbers aren't legit so find another way.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Figures you either don't get it, or don't want to get it.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



It was a book first, a book written by a socialist who saw the pitfalls of the system he preferred.


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



^^^^ obviously saw only the movie. Dude don't read well.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


i agreed with you, I can't see how the magic 8 ball gets all the temperatures on the graph right.  right?

Why would they use the raw data, it doesn't match their ineffective models they built 20 years ago?  The right thing to do is to fudge the data and make the models right.  Hello mr. 8 ball.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


1984 was the title to a famous book.   Later, they made it into a movie.

Global Warming may very well be happening.  But if it is, there is no valid scientific proof that it is somehow "caused" (or made one tiny iota worse) by humans.

I say your theory is silly.  YOU deny it.

YOU fucking denier.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > This guy is quoting movie scripts lmao!
> ...


I need to look up erudite now.....


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 25, 2015)

K......now I'm good.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...








What data do they produce?  Be specific.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...








It's a three dollar word I rarely get to use!


----------



## martybegan (Nov 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It's one of those words where you think the person is insulting the topic in question, but they are not.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Yep.....words like "alacrity".

We live for those moments.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > I remain open to the discussion of the OP, it just happened that the last person discussing the topic ( the one with a green witch avatar) had the argumentative power of a dimwit, so I stopped discussing with him/her.
> ...


  First, thanks for presenting arguments instead of ranting, I really appreciate it. 
  In summary you seem to propose two motives : 
1) Self aggrandizement
2) Government-Corporate corruption

  Regarding self aggrandizement, yes, it is possible that some scientist are motivated by it. Extending such motivation to all scientists seems a little bit far fetched. So lets just say most of them (80%) are motivaded by it.  That would still leave the reminding 20%. Now I will not discuss if that 20% is right or wrong in spite of their legitimate concern. 

 Regarding government corporate corruption, yes, I was aware of Solyndra as well as other green tech companies involved in corruption ( quite surprisingly Special Ed provided the links one of those rare days in which he didn't wake up in rant mode). I found that very sad. 
  That said, this kind of corruption is not exclusive of green tech companies as we saw in 2008. This leaves clear the fact that this free money scheme doesn't work and must be stopped. 
  I find other mechanisms might work better, like providing tax breaks for startups. 

  Since pollution is a global problem the source of pollution will shift as years pass : US was the biggest polluter until 2005, but now China has taken that place. The chinese have promissed to start decreasing their pollution levels by 2025, once that happens India will probably become the largest pollutor. 
  I tend to see this problem from a business perspective: it seems logic to invest in r&d for green technologies, ultimately India and China will seek to shift to green technologies ( I will include nuclear here although there are some known dangers associated with it ) because once they develop industrially their energy consumption will reach unsustainable levels.  
  Now some do's and dont's in my list: 
Do: solar , wind, nuclear (if necesary), off the grid houses, 100+ mpg vehicles,  
Don'ts : fracking, tar sands, deep oil, ultra dense cities, megalopolies.  

And although this will probably be very debatable , cow population has to be stabilized :we can't get to the point where there are more cows than humans. Today there are about *1.5 billion cows* in the world.

Cattle/cow population worldwide - how many, 2013 | Statistic


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...


  To that, I must point out that there are more effective and efficient ways to achieve world population control from both corporations and the government : both Google , facebook and the NSA know a lot more about me and you than what George Orwell could have dreamed: Unless you are using Tor google knows what sites you visited what you searched , and what adds you clicked during the last 5 years. 
  I really wonder if green technologies could somehow provide more control than that. Mind you people seem quite unconcerned about this invisible control.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 25, 2015)

martybegan said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



Of course it was a book first and it was a movie also. Since I didn't say the movie was first I have no idea what you have a problem with. So I was correct and you're just bitching.


----------



## Votto (Nov 25, 2015)

I remember when a scientist speculated that ulcers were caused by bacteria.  His theory ran against the grain of every scientific belief up till that time, and he was derided for it, however, he was later vendicated

This is the type of opposition one is faced within the scientific community when new theories that challenge accepted theories are given.  Add to that political power opposing you as well as the politics within the scientific community, and you will find yourself not only derided, but without a job and maybe in prison like climate deniers in places like Australia.

I'm not really of the opinion that the climate is not warming.  After all, other planets in the solar system are also warming.  The only question is, what is causing it and what are the far reaching implications?  This type of inquiry is not just of facts, it is making sense of the facts.  It is making the facts correlate into a theory.  Neither side can prove their position.  All they have are theories.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> If science isn't good enough then can you tell me well I'm supposed to choose from as proof?



That is the problem....the whole AGW thing isn't really about science.  Simply put, the scientific method is as follows: 
a method of research in which a problem is identified,r relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is is empirically tested.  First off, exactly what problem was identified...the warming at the time of the birth of the global warming hoax....and the warming today is well within the boundaries of natural variability...but they found a "problem" anyway....and called it global warming after they called it global cooling.  Then they formed a hypothesis...and skipped the entire empirical testing step all together to see if the corner stone of their hypothesis, that being that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming was valid, and jumped straight away into crying crisis and telling us that we need to spend billions upon billions of dollars, cripple economies, distribute resources from wealthy nations to poor nations and literally change the way every person on earth lives. 

What person with even reasonable critical thinking skills would accept their claims when the most fundamental element of the hypothesis has zero empirical evidence in its support? 



ClosedCaption said:


> Yanno, something more reliable than science like a ouija board maybe?  Or a magic 8 ball?



How about actually being able to recognize and differentiate the difference between science and pseudoscience.  A hypothesis which has not had its most basis premise tested, and verified experimentally is no basis upon which to do anything at all.  Calling it science doesn't make it science.  When someone can produce some empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, then we have some basis upon which to continue the discussion and start asking questions like how much warming....how quickly....is warming good or bad....do the benefits of doing something outweigh the cost of doing nothing....what will be the results of doing nothing? 

But none of those questions can even begin to be asked because the basic premise of the hypothesis remains unproven....Tell me, do you....does anyone...have even the vaguest idea of what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is?  My bet is that it isn't the temperature we are living in now because the earth is still coming out of an ice age....in a geological sense, it is f'ing cold on planet earth right now and paleontology tells us that life flourished with more vigor and diversity when the earth was considerably warmer than it is now.



ClosedCaption said:


> This is like saying prove that 2 plus 2 equals 4 but here's the catch, you can't use numbers or math. Lol



Experiment is the basis of science....just as numbers are the basis of 2+2=4....what would you think of someone who said that they could do math without bothering to use numbers, or letters that represent numbers.  That is what climate science is saying...they are saying that they can do science but have no real need of the scientific method...they are asking you to accept what they say on faith..not on scientific evidence.  If you are unable to differentiate the difference between actual science and pseudoscience then the fault lies with you...and it is your own fault that you have been duped by pseudoscience claiming to be science.  Look again at the definition of the scientific method and then look for that empirical evidence which proves the most fundamental claim of AGW....that being that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...and when you see that it can't be found because it doesn't exist....ask yourself why you believe.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 25, 2015)

You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.

Climate change science is the best science ever.

Now, if we go by your rules I win because I just asserted something and that means it's true.  Feel free to submit your findings to the scientific community.  What's that? You don't have any findings?  Well by golly, that's shocking.

How about proof that the science is flawed?  Aw man, you have nothing again? Sheesh


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> First, thanks for presenting arguments instead of ranting, I really appreciate it.
> In summary you seem to propose two motives :
> 1) Self aggrandizement
> 2) Government-Corporate corruption
> ...



OK, first of all, I'm not talking about "ALL SCIENTISTS", so lets drop that premise right off. I'm talking about people who either are, or claim to be scientific professionals or experts that actually have a background in climate study AND promote MMGW theory. I don't care what percent of the community they represent, but they do not represent them all. Even IF only%3 dispute MMGW, then there is no consensus. I suspect many more scientists are skeptical, but value their jobs and do not publicly raise skepticism. However there are I don't know how many testimonials from former IPCC members who report being ostracized and threatened for questioning the data or exposing the faults.

EVERYONE on earth who has ever existed except for Jesus has been motivated by personal needs and wants. The sort on integrity it would take for someone to throw a career in academia away let alone the income after decades of work in that arena has to be rare, but it clearly exists.



> Regarding government corporate corruption, yes, I was aware of Solyndra as well as other green tech companies involved in corruption ( quite surprisingly Special Ed provided the links one of those rare days in which he didn't wake up in rant mode). I found that very sad.
> That said, this kind of corruption is not exclusive of green tech companies as we saw in 2008. This leaves clear the fact that this free money scheme doesn't work and must be stopped.
> I find other mechanisms might work better, like providing tax breaks for startups.



Tax breaks across the board appeals to me. The fact that there has been so much corruption between the government and "green tech" is all the proof I need that the agenda is based on politics and greed, especially since NOT ONE person has been brought up on charges. We are talking about the theft and waste of hundreds of millions of dollars here. If politics aren't a pivotal aspect of the hoax what on earth is allowing this to continue?

Like I said before if a republicrat allowed millions of federal dollars to go into ANY sort of company, and it was found that a significant amount of money was returned in the form of campaign donations to the GOP through whatever avenue and that the company failed to produce something of value, the media would have hordes of people in the streets with pitchforks and torches. People would go to prison, I promise you.




> Since pollution is a global problem the source of pollution will shift as years pass : US was the biggest polluter until 2005, but now China has taken that place. The chinese have promissed to start decreasing their pollution levels by 2025, once that happens India will probably become the largest pollutor.
> I tend to see this problem from a business perspective: it seems logic to invest in r&d for green technologies, ultimately India and China will seek to shift to green technologies ( I will include nuclear here although there are some known dangers associated with it ) because once they develop industrially their energy consumption will reach unsustainable levels.
> Now some do's and dont's in my list:
> Do: solar , wind, nuclear (if necesary), off the grid houses, 100+ mpg vehicles,
> Don'ts : fracking, tar sands, deep oil, ultra dense cities, megalopolies.



Pollution isn't the issue here, the hoax is. Pollution is a problem to me, no matter who's air is grey and toxic but I'm not here to address it.



> And although this will probably be very debatable , cow population has to be stabilized :we can't get to the point where there are more cows than humans. Today there are about *1.5 billion cows* in the world.
> 
> Cattle/cow population worldwide - how many, 2013 | Statistic



Yeah...

You can forget that ridiculous line of thought. Cows are delicious, their farts aren't going to do anything.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

martybegan said:


> From 1984:
> 
> 
> 
> > "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were- cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?"



Both government and corporations have now a lot of control . Arguably google, the smartfones, facebook and the NSA have much more control over us than what could possible be achieved from green tech. 

Also , if you install panels in you roof you gain independence instead of being dependent on the grid. 
So exactly how would such control mechanisms be enacted ?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Yeah...
> 
> You can forget that ridiculous line of thought. Cows are delicious, their farts aren't going to do anything.


Delicius indeed, but there are not enough grasslands to give food to 10 billion cows. 
But then , maybe meat can be growth in a petri dish in the future.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Like I said before if a republicrat allowed millions of federal dollars to go into ANY sort of company, and it was found that a significant amount of money was returned in the form of campaign donations to the GOP through whatever avenue and that the company failed to produce something of value, the media would have hordes of people in the streets with pitchforks and torches. People would go to prison, I promise you.


Not so, who went to jail after 2008? There was corruption on all levels . It is naive to think corruption happens only between the democrats and green tech companies.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said before if a republicrat allowed millions of federal dollars to go into ANY sort of company, and it was found that a significant amount of money was returned in the form of campaign donations to the GOP through whatever avenue and that the company failed to produce something of value, the media would have hordes of people in the streets with pitchforks and torches. People would go to prison, I promise you.
> ...




Do you have an example of the Bush admin granting millions of dollars to a company that went tits up afterwards?

I would agree that the bailouts were wrong, but the messiah encouraged that and more.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.



So lets see the empirical evidence proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.  If no such empirical evidence exists supporting the most fundamental claim of the AGW hypothesis, what else could you call it but pseudoscience.



ClosedCaption said:


> Climate change science is the best science ever.



OK...you can start to support that claim by providing hard empirical evidence that supports the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis...that being that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...of course that doesn't prove that it is the best science ever, but it would distinguish it from pseudoscience and provide a basis for further discussion of the hypothesis.  

So lets see that empirical evidence that supports the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis.  Failure to provide even that calls the claim that climate science is even science into question.



ClosedCaption said:


> Now, if we go by your rules I win because I just asserted something and that means it's true.  Feel free to submit your findings to the scientific community.  What's that? You don't have any findings?  Well by golly, that's shocking.



No need...I am not making any claim that a slight increase in a trace gas in the atmosphere causes anything.  See...that's how science is done.  You make a claim that if you do this....then that happens....you write a hypothesis,  then you go about gathering empirical evidence that supports the claim.  I am asking where the empirical evidence is that supports the foundational claim of the AGW hypothesis....neither you.....nor anyone else on earth can provide such evidence because it does not exist.  I am asking for evidence to support the claim....without it, why would I, or anyone believe those making the claim?  Why would you believe them lacking such fundamental empirical evidence?



ClosedCaption said:


> How about proof that the science is flawed?  Aw man, you have nothing again? Sheesh



Your failure to be able to provide empirical evidence proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is evidence that the science is flawed....if such evidence were available, it would be plastered everywhere and there wouldn't be much of a skeptical voice out there.  You don't hear people voicing skepticism over the validity of the periodic table...there are mountains of empirical evidence to support its structure,  You don't hear many people being skeptical over plate tectonics....again, vast amounts of empirical evidence to support the claims made by the hypothesis....and I could go on ad nauseum over science in which there is very little if any skeptical voice in opposition to the claims..because of mountains of empirical data to support the science.

I am not asking for mountains of empirical data to support the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis....I am just asking for a shred....something upon which to base further discussion....and neither you, nor all of climate science can provide even that.  How could you call science which can't provide even a little bit of empirical evidence proving the most basic premise of its hypothesis anything other than flawed...in fact, how could you call it science at all?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?



Have you seriously not heard quotes from the UN CC panel leadership ADMITTING the aim of their Climate Conferences and Science reports is global redistribution?? Never seen the "mission statement" of their science panel which states outright they are only interested causes and science related to MAN-MADE global warming? 

How much work have YOU put into this? Because from your tone -- it's next to nothing. 

First off -- no serious people who are informed about the history and science of these theories and agendas, would call it a "hoax".. That's a political term. Just like when leftists put GW at a higher threat than global conflicts. Most any INFORMED person on either side knows that the planet has warmed by a "tad" (0.5degC in your lifetime) and that CO2 plays at least a LIMITED role in raising surface temperatures. 

But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about. 

If you HAVE NOT seen the admissions of the socio-political agenda behind this largely POLITICAL movement. Just ask.. Or better yet -- go find them yourself..


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...











What do you have against cows?  New Zealand's human population is outnumbered 20 to one by sheep.  They are doing alright.

There are micro nuclear power plants that will do everything we need energy wise and are totally safe.  Toshiba's 4S is just one variant of the technology....Bill Gates joined with them in 2010 as part of his green energy goals.  

TOSHIBA - Multipurpose Energy Station 4S

http://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-toshibas-4s-reactor


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.
> 
> Climate change science is the best science ever.
> 
> ...









Bullcrap.  It is the worst so far the world has ever seen.  It is nothing more than computer derived fiction.  There is precious little empirical data....period.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Actually, most of it was on History Channel......

Alot of what they have on there has to be taken with a grain of salt......but I've seen too many examples......Bill Gates and George Soros to name a couple. Open borders folks that want to spread disease and start wars in the Middle-East. Ford Foundation, the Tides Foundation.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...


Well , actually Bush dad protected Bush jr quite a lot in spite of his rather dubious ability as a manager. Though you could well argue those were lucky strikes.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.
> 
> If you HAVE NOT seen the admissions of the socio-political agenda behind this largely POLITICAL movement. Just ask.. Or better yet -- go find them yourself..


Well , believe it or not there's people who actually deny the warming ( yes , they simply deny Earth has had any warming at all), I have not been specific on that , because It is irrelevant for the discussion. I simply want to dwelve into the different theories of why would factual powers create a conspiracy about this. 

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2. 

A shift from fosil to renewables will necesarily have both economical and political implications. I did not start of this thread to "find by myself" but rather from hear them from others.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



It is not the number of cows, but the density. Canada and Rusia could have 10 or 20 times their population outnumbered by cows. Bangladesh on the other hand would have a hard time keeping a 50% ratio. 

Nuclear is kind of ok, but then you have to consider the caveats : the rest of the world will also like to have nuclear power. Europe seems ok , as well as South and Central America .. the middle east is a tricker matter.  
Also fuel has to be mined , which also has some risks and wastes have to be safely stored for thousands of years. 
Better than tar sands and fracking, definitiveley, but not without caveats.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.
> ...



Nobody with any science background that matters denies the small warming blip during your lifetime. Or that CO2 MIGHT play a limited role in that.   Fact is that natural variations have been largely under estimated and the role of CO2 is way over estimated. As witnessed by the failures of most climate models to predict temperature even 15 or 20 years out.. 

As for the 2degC trigger -- it's headline news. It's the mantra of the next Climate Conf. in Paris. And it's the most quoted number for the "trigger". Interestingly enough, the REAL warming powers of CO2 would NEVER get us to 5degC by itself.. Not without the speculated (imagined) list of positive feedbacks and magic multipliers that are the CORE of the debate. 

If the Earth was gonna go suicidal with a 2degC spike in warming -- we wouldn't be here now. THAT's what your GW speculates. 

So are you aware of the socio-political statements that CONFIRM the larger agenda of the GW Zealots? 
I'll provide them for you if you're really oblivious to the movement side of this circus.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



I'm kinda sensitive to this "cow thing". Because it's a significant fraction of what gets charged  to mankind emissions of CO2. And there's NO WAY -- that's a fair assessment. Because domestic cattle largely replaced MASSIVE herds of wild stock (deer, buffalo, etc) that pre-existed the development of farming.. Should NOT be charged to manmade emissions without an adequate adjustment..


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade. 
I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) . 
That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands. 

Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Well , actually Bush dad protected Bush jr quite a lot in spite of his rather dubious ability as a manager. Though you could well argue those were lucky strikes.



Can you specifically point to anything, even rumors or conspiracy theories that suggest any republicrat regime since Harding that can be offered as examples of corruption on the level of "green" companies getting millions of dollars from government grants, and money from those companies, even from employees' salaries going into republicrat campaigns? 

Everyone should be so outraged about Solyndra alone, that US Marshals would be terrified to not have people in custody, let alone the fact that Solyndra is only one example even if it's the worst. The media is clearly complicit in this scandal because it's a leftist scandal and they're compelled to minimize it. Yet because even republicrat political whores are complicit there has been no effort to hold anyone accountable.

This is why conservatives are determined to elect people who will severely reduce the power of the government. If you take away their power to waste money, to interfere in commerce, and avoid prosecution a whole lot this corruption disappears.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade.
> I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) .
> That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands.
> 
> Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.



My position is that there has been no significant change in temperature in 200 years. That said there's no man made anything.

We will never see an emergency situation due to our own impact, or that we can do anything about.

I don't care what kind of fuels we use, or where they come from unless it can be proven beyond a doubt that it causes detriment to humanity.

For centuries we used whale fat for light. It caused fires. Then we found out about kerosene and natural gas. Then electricity.

Eventually we will figure out a way to harness natural shit like wind, hydro, nuclear and solar in order to have a totally reliable source for our energy needs. We might have cars that can run for hundreds of thousands of miles using nothing but solar power and a battery technology yet to be innovated. Maybe even fuckin shit that can fly.

All of these innovations will be successful based on their merits, not through subsidies. If these technologies have to be subsidized it is because they can't be produced for a price reasonable for people to choose them over existing available and affordable choices.

Once Rockefeller figured out how to refine crude into reliable kerosene, he saved the whales.

Once J.P. Morgan consolidated the patents and made the mass transmission of electricity possible, he lit the entire country so bright it could be seen on Alpha Centauri in 1904.

There were incredible strides made throughout the 1900's that shaped human history and they were all accomplished through competitive endeavors of the greatest minds mankind has ever known. Sure in some cases the government offered incentives for military and space technology, but there was always a result. With "green" industry there has been little if any progress. That's why I say fuck "green" bullshit. Let it sink or swim. Unless it can make enough of a profit it will never be invested in, and if it can't even deliver enough revenue to compensate people who keep it running it's a fools errand because the entire premise behind "green energy" is a giant steaming pile of bullshit that would have it's own magnetic field if it were tangible.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Lets address your perception.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.






The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variation rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that *the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..*






So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 *there was no discernible increase in that natural rise. * In other words, no man made signature is present!

So tell me, where exactly is mans input signal and what has it done to earths atmosphere and temp?  Where is the rise attributed to man contributions?  It is not in the empirically observed evidence.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2015)

Further more; The paleo records show we are in a long term cooling trend approaching the next glacial cycle.





If you gauge the patterns we are over due for our fall into the next glacial cycle. Our current holecene is near its end.




Even this shows that a 2 deg C rise or fall "trigger", no matter what cause, is pure ludicrous hype and bull shit. The current cycle shows well over a 2 deg C variation.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2015)

Votto said:


> I remember when a scientist speculated that ulcers were caused by bacteria.  His theory ran against the grain of every scientific belief up till that time, and he was derided for it, however, he was later vendicated
> 
> This is the type of opposition one is faced within the scientific community when new theories that challenge accepted theories are given.  Add to that political power opposing you as well as the politics within the scientific community, and you will find yourself not only derided, but without a job and maybe in prison like climate deniers in places like Australia.
> 
> I'm not really of the opinion that the climate is not warming.  After all, other planets in the solar system are also warming.  The only question is, what is causing it and what are the far reaching implications?  This type of inquiry is not just of facts, it is making sense of the facts.  It is making the facts correlate into a theory.  Neither side can prove their position.  All they have are theories.


So you have no opinion


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 *there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.*
> 
> So tell me, where exaxctly is mans input signal? Where is the rise attributed to man contributions? It is not in the empirically observed evidence.


It is possible that the CO2 doesn't have an immediat effect , but rather it takes several years to cause an increase in temperature. 
I'll admit that's speculation on my part, since I am no climatologist. On the other hand to say that chart is correct you would have to proove the oposite : that the full blown effects of increase in CO2 are felt in the following year in which it was produced. 
There goes a plausible explanation for the lack of correlation in your chart .


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 *there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.*
> ...



One problem with your hypothesis, the residency time for CO2 in our atmosphere is less than 40 years ( could be as little as 7 years).  It is not 100 years or 1000 years as postulated by our EPA and the IPCC which would allow us to build up exponentially and ultimately cause rapid rise in CO2 levels. A recent paper lays the driving premise of the EPA and IPCC waste..

CO2 residence time said to be 40 years, not 1000 per previous claims

Even then, the water (convection cycle) is not slowed by CO2 and it by itself, will allow heat escape faster than CO2 can retard it.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.
> ...









I suggest you look at the historical record which shows that those claims have never happened when the temps were even warmer than what they warn about.  The Holocene Thermal Maximum was at least 5.5 degrees C warmer than the present day and not one bad thing happened.  Not one.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.
> 
> Climate change science is the best science ever.
> 
> ...


Ah batman, it is you who has nothing, but you already knew that. Funny how that works.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...








Read the Toshiba link.  Their reactor uses depleted uranium.  Far safer than any other fuel used on the planet.  The density of the cows is immaterial.  As flacaltenn so ably pointed out there were MILLIONS of critters before man started raising cows.  There were a minimum of 60 million bison on the Great Plains in the 1850's.  The USDA says there are 98.4 million cows in the US at this moment.  The cows now are kept in limited ranges compared to the bison and wild cattle that lived in the 1850's so yet again a concern is shown to be no big deal when actual facts and figures are presented.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...












How do you support your supposition?  There is almost no empirical data to support that.


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 *there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.*
> ...










All empirical data says otherwise.  The data shows warming occurs and then, between 400 and 800 years AFTER the warming there is a corresponding rise in CO2.  CO2 has NEVER initiated a rise in global temperature.  It has always risen as a result of warming.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Everyone's entitled to an opinion. But facts are what matter. 

Solar is not an "alternative". It is a peaker technology, applicable in only certain regions for large scale generation and it requires a RELIABLE full capacity backup. The MOST solar you could apply in a well designed grid is about 10%. And that is related to the peak daytime demand. And OIL has virtually NOTHING to do with generating electricity. A point that MOST leftists simply miss. 

If you don't like fossil fuels, don't pervert science or use GW as an excuse for every ailment with the environment. Don't fuck with people's brains by confusing "carbon" with CO2 (and calling CO2 "a pollutant"). Do it HONESTLY.. 

The actual warming power of CO2 --- BY ITSELF---- without all of the hysterical, imagined feedbacks and multipliers is about 1degC/doubling. We have not reached even the FIRST doubling since the Indust. Age began. MIGHT reach it by 2030 or 2040.  And THEN --- you need TWICE as much added CO2 to get the same 1degC. So pre-Indust was 280ppm. 1st doubling is 560ppm (we are at about 400ppm). The NEXT doubling after 2030 or so would have to reach 1120ppm..  By then --- a lot will have changed. You do the math on that and figure out "what percentage" of this little temperature blip is man-made and what FUTURE projections should be.. 

After we do all that -- we can chat about any of the hotly contested and debatable theories of "accelerated warming" that the GW zealots used to frighten people and demagogue for ulterior motives..


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 *there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.*
> ...



I like the way you think about the problem. With a little more attention to the debate -- you are prime candidate for making your OWN decisions about what's true and what's been severely misrepresented.

That comment about Delayed effects of CO2 -- indeed ANY thermal forcing -- is generally acknowledged, but treated very badly in the modeling and gross simplications that dominate GW science. For instance, there is this vital "constant" called Climate Sensitivity that INCLUDES (in theory) both the short term reaction of the atmos/surface temperatures and the LONGER term reactions. However, a LOT of the work reduces this number to ONE hare-brained global # for the whole planet surface, regardless of whether it's arctic or equatorial, and regardless of time delays or storages in the system.

And you MIGHT already be ahead of most climate science with thinking about those delays and storage features, since GW science just suddenly discovered that the oceans are the major "sink" of thermal storage about 6 years ago now. So a lot of early scary work in the field looks pretty ridiculous even 10 years later..

Being trained and having applied a lot of complex systems modeling -- I KNOW it would be truly amazing if a complex system like the Earth's climate was a simple linear response to ONE input variable and expected to mirror that without integration, or storage or delays. But YET --- that was the impression that Climate geeks gave the public when they showed the highly identical  CO2 and temperature curves..


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.
> ...


You're letting him get to you rather than playing his game of being a dumb fk. He rates at the top of that pyramid with tooth and the others. Don't loose control. His is the hoax.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Ah, a dumb fk that doesn't understand burden of proof. But he believes in the lie. He is the lie.
Hoax exists whether you approve or not. So, prove me wrong and show the CO2 empirical evidence that's been requested many times now in here. Without that proves the  hoax. SEE?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 25, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Burden of proof?  YOU are claiming they are WRONG. Where is your burden of proof?

I'm expecting laughing, calling names and no proof.


----------



## Votto (Nov 25, 2015)

Dim lawmakers from coal producing states plead with Obama to reconsider the dictates from the EPA that will destroy their local economies.

More Than 600 Democratic Officials Sign Letter to Obama Opposing New Environmental Regulations — Here’s Why

Simply put, they need to change parties.  They are no longer welcomed in their own party


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Ahem, noted in my previous post, you can use that post as my answer.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> We will never see an emergency situation due to our own impact, or that we can do anything about.
> 
> I don't care what kind of fuels we use, or where they come from unless it can be proven beyond a doubt that it causes detriment to humanity.



In this I differ. In the past civilizations have fallen because of overuse of resources. This is still a danger. 
  The clearest example is what happened in the viking settlements of greenland. The viking settlements went the dodo way while the esquimos thrived. Yes human action and adapting to change are key factors.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



It's actually quite simple : co2 gives a blanket effect the effect is not immediate, it builds up with time. 
Some people cheer at the fact that we have 400 ppm co2 and almost no warming .
But the correct expression is : we've had 400 ppm for one year and have had almost no warming. We will probably see the effects 5 or 10 years later. That's why I am almost certain we are under no immedeate threat. 
By analogy when you put a lid on a pan being heated you will not notice the effect immediately , but wait five minutes and you'll notice the effect on the temperature.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Interesting.... any links ?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Reactors : I stand by my position. Would you rather fill middle east with solar panels and wind turbines or nuclear reactors, no matter how safe they are ? 

Cows : I am unsure about the loading capacity for the US, The US is self suficient in beef so my bet is a 1 to 4 ratio is about enough ( probably more than enough ). 

The density does matter, a lot, I've heard many times stories of droughts killing millions of cattle, so yes, it depend on the availability of food and water.  Strikingly the country with the highest cattle headcount makes little use of them : India. 
The fact that cows are kept in ranges is of no importance: the food and water they consume occupies certain amount of land.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 25, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


 Ok , let's say the co2 takes 10 years to take its full effect. The co2 curve in the chart you showed should be shifted 10 years to show a correlation ( if my hunch is correct).That would be the input co2 levels, with a lag time. 
Anyway that was this year, and it will probably take a while before we notice the effects. I am really waiting until 2020 to see the weather tendency. As I said earlier we are not in an emergency situation yet.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



The effect of the CO2 is an immediate change in the amount of IR radiation trapped (back-radiated) towards the surface. The timing of a temperature rise may have some settling period from that forcing. But the effect of CO2 BY ITSELF --- will never exceed that 1degC/doubling.

Now the planet doesn't have just one climate zone, and the arctic responds differently from the topics. And the land and ocean and deserts respond differently. All those are SHORT term variations in the way the radiative CO2 forcing converts to surface temperature. The LONG term conversion effects are all these "imagined" disaster scenarios, where the forcing for instance causes massive permafrost melt or changes the surface albedo or the amount of clouds.

So -- the effect of CO2 emissions THEMSELVES are probably less than a decade to settle to a new temperature. But one would expect both HIGHS and LOWs as the change settles out.  The other magical stuff (which skeptics are ACTUALLY skeptical about) might take 50 to 200 years to equalize out. If it happened at all.. 

BTW -- if you ignore all the hysteria and failed climate modeling and use the basic Physics/Chem warming power of CO2 that I gave you --- the OBSERVED warming since the Indus. Age is right on target for about 1degC/doubling.

And 2degC by 2100 is no front page news. So the HYSTERICAL part of GW -- where the zealots and a handful of activist climate scientists have in the past RANTED about 5 or even 8 degC by 2100, is becoming less and less likely and the progress on the Climate Sensitivity numbers SHOW that decline in predictions just over the last decade of research..


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 25, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Oh I'd prefer to fill the Arabian peninsula WITH ALL the windmills and solar panels we're paying for. So that they cease to exist as a threat because their societies can't function. What gives you the idea that any advanced society can THRIVE with wind and solar generating their electricity? Did you read this fairy tale somewhere? 


Why don't you not worry about Mid East and worry about the 10 LARGEST emission nations first?


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...















Wrong again.  We are making no claims.  It is your boys who are making the claims.  Thus it is THEY who need to support their claims.  Not us.  That's how _real_ science works.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...















The problem is you misunderstand how the greenhouse effect works.   It doesn't warm up anything.  It merely prevents heat from escaping into space.  It is a blanket and not an electric blanket.  Absent our atmosphere the Earth would be like the Moon, blistering hot during the day and hundreds below zero at night.  Our atmosphere keeps the heat in.  That's all.  It does not add heat.   The Sun is the source of heat on the planet with a dash of geologic heat from the core as it transmits to the mantle and finally the crust with eruptions.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...









Here you go....





*"Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores*
In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that _carbon lagged behind temperature_. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years _before carbon starts to move_. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated."







The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed « JoNova








ANZICE - Antarctic Research Centre - Victoria University of Wellington


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



One problem... our current lack of warming and no decrease in rate of CO2 climb.   The paths, if we use your analogy, should have resulted in warming by this time. 

It is common knowledge by most oceanographers that the heat storage of the oceans is about 12-16 years lag. We are now at 18 years 9 months of no warming.  Not far enough beyond the known lag factor to totally disprove it but far enough along to show there is very little if no correlation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Interesting note; The paper I posted up thread shows how water vapor increases ever so slightly with CO2 rise. This minute rise in water vapor is not thwarted by CO2 as it rises above the so called "thermal Blanket" that the activist like to call it., and releases its IR to space.when the water cycle speeds up CO2 is powerless to stop the cooling that will happen.

The paper shows how three different systems thwart the CO2 slowing of IR in the lower areas of the atmosphere. Currently we are at 0.76 deg C Rise for 115 years and about 120ppm of rise. Far less than a 1.21 deg C rise that occurs with CO2 alone in the lab.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2015)

*Ferdinand Engelbeen Phd;

Conclusion: Most of the CO2 increase is caused by human emissions. Most of the variability is natural variability. The match between temperature and CO2 rate of change is entirely spurious.*

Source

I think that while we may be causing some rise it is not as much as many people think.  1.57ppm of our rise/yr is naturally occurring leaving just 1.0 ppm from man made emissions.  But I do disagree with some of her numbers.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 26, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



No , I didn't say it warmed anything I said :
  "By analogy when you put a lid on a pan being heated", so I was comparing it to a lid put on top of a pan. 
It seems you misunderstood my analogy.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...








No, I understood your analogy, but as you don't understand the relationship between greenhouse gases and the global temperature your analogy fails.  The pan is heated by external means but it can only heat it to a certain point, all covering the pan does is bring it up to that temperature faster.  The same is true of the Earth.  The Sun heats the planet but it can only heat it to a certain point.  Any claim of runaway temperature from CO2 is thus a violation of physics as we know it.  The Earth is not a perpetual motion machine.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 26, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Interesting, thanks.
  I am not sure of what conclusions to draw . 
  First, we are facing a situation that is new in the last 400,000 years ( at least) : carbon spiking before temperature rise.
  Second it is intresting to note how after reaching a maximum both temperatures and co2 drop almost vertically. 
  Third , our situation is unique in another sense judging by the second chart: the changes in co2 and methane levels we are seing usually take 15,000 years . We are now having the same level of change in 100 years. 
  I can only conclude that the previous natural cycles have a very different nature
  We can conclude that a raise in temperature creates a rise in co2 with a lag of 800 years or so. But the oposite will not necesarily be true ( a rise of co2 will create a rise of temperature with 800 years of lag ).


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 26, 2015)

westwall said:


> No, I understood your analogy, but as you don't understand the relationship between greenhouse gases and the global temperature your analogy fails. The pan is heated by external means but it can only heat it to a certain point, all covering the pan does is bring it up to that temperature faster. The same is true of the Earth. The Sun heats the planet but it can only heat it to a certain point. Any claim of runaway temperature from CO2 is thus a violation of physics as we know it. The Earth is not a perpetual motion machine.


Let's see:
*"The pan is heated by external means but it can only heat it to a certain point, all covering the pan does is bring it up to that temperature faster."*

This would be incorrect. The lid ( specially one that seals the pan) will make the pan reach a much higher temperature.
In the pan you can see this clearly because a pressure cooker can reach much higher temperatures than a regular pan.
At a planetary level you can see it by comparing the surface temperature of mercury and venus.
Venus is a lot hotter , because it has a thick atmosphere, and this is true even though mercury is closer than the sun and receives more heat.

*"The Sun heats the planet but it can only heat it to a certain point"*
  Yes , to a certain point , but that point can be 10 or 20  C higher, it has happened before , it can happen again. 

*Any claim of runaway temperature from CO2 is thus a violation of physics as we know it. The Earth is not a perpetual motion machine*
No , it is not , again , take a look at Venus. This has nothing to do with being a perpetual motion machine. It simply means the amount of energy received from the sun minus the amount of heat leaving the planet is kept as heat , heat which will rise the temperature to a certain level.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...









No, actually we're not.  The MWP occurred 800 years ago so the current CO2 rise is consistent with the Vostock ice core data.   The CO2 is thus spiking right on schedule.

One of the primary axioms in science is "correlation does not equal causation".  Climatologists have ignored that axiom for decades.

How do we know?  The information you are relying on comes from computer models of dubious nature.  We do know that as they are trace gasses they really have virtually no impact on the global temp.  Methane is a naturally occurring gas.  There are many moons in our solar system that are nothing more than little methane balls.  I assure you that no whales have been farting (just one of the more ridiculous "theories" that climatologists came up with in the last few years) to make that happen.

No.  Natural cycles absent catastrophic impacts stay the same.  We are seeing NOTHING that is different than what has come before.  The storms today are actually LESS violent than those of old.  Look up The Great Drowning of Men storms.  Or check out the Great Flood of 1862 in the western US.  The entire Central Valley of California was a lake.  The whole thing.  We haven't seen anything even remotely as powerful as those storms so the meme that our storms are more frequent and more powerful is an outright lie.  The storms I told you to look up are well known to anyone who studies climate and paleo climate.

There is zero empirical data to support your last statement.  Absolutely none.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



If thermal release is slowed, it is the oceans which will govern the rate at which the earth  warms.  Average lag of ocean temp increase is 15-25 years, a far cry from 800 year lag. Our current warming hiatus is proof that the added CO2 is not causing a rise in global mean temps. and ocean cooling rates are now spiking indicating that we have lost thermal input required to maintain the current levels of warmth.  Oddly this is right in line with the end of the last solar cycle.

IT is truly funny how the activists blame man and forget the very basics of thermal; dynamic laws... Where does earth derive it heat from?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 26, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> [
> 
> Burden of proof?  YOU are claiming they are WRONG. Where is your burden of proof?
> 
> I'm expecting laughing, calling names and no proof.



The burden of proof lies on those who are working from the AGW hypothesis...That is how it is with science....Those who believe the hypothesis claim that additional CO2 is going to cause catastrophic warming and because of that we must alter our lifestyles radically.  I am asking for the empirical evidence which supports that claim.  Cleary neither you, nor anyone else can provide such evidence because it simply does not exist.  

That being the case, why should I believe the claims and more importantly, why do you?


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, I understood your analogy, but as you don't understand the relationship between greenhouse gases and the global temperature your analogy fails. The pan is heated by external means but it can only heat it to a certain point, all covering the pan does is bring it up to that temperature faster. The same is true of the Earth. The Sun heats the planet but it can only heat it to a certain point. Any claim of runaway temperature from CO2 is thus a violation of physics as we know it. The Earth is not a perpetual motion machine.
> ...








Absolutely false.  The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat.  That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable.  However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc.  You are simply wrong here.  All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature.  All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation.  That is a fundamental violation of physics.

Look it up.

The Earth was warmer in the past because the Sun was more energetic.  Once again look it up.  Also  there was much less actual land area hundreds of millions of years ago.  The increase in continental crust as opposed to oceanic crust has seen a marked drop in overall temperature.  We are truly living in a golden age.  The temperature of the planet through most of mans existence has been much colder.

Venus has a atmosphere almost wholly made up of CO2.  I suggest you look up the Ideal Gas Laws and how pressure influences temperature.  You're trying to compare an elephant with a fly.

By your line of reasoning I can tell that you are not very conversant with science.  Might I suggest you join a physics forum where they can educate you in short order on the Ideal Gas Laws and how they pertain to the Venusian atmosphere and temperature.  There are also some good geology forums that deal with paleoclimatology as it pertains to the ice ages etc.

I am by no means trying to insult you.  I just feel that were you better informed you would be able to understand the arguments better and come to your own conclusions.  Not conclusions that are being fed to you in the belief (rightly so at the moment) that you won't understand where their theories fall apart and the fiction begins.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 26, 2015)

westwall said:


> Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.


The burner : ok , the sun's surface has a temp of 5,000 K , so yes , the Earth can't get any hotter than that. Granted. 

*"All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature"*
No , that is incorrect : since there is a lid , the water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more . Water vapour in a cooking pot can reach more than 250 F. In an open pan you will never get temperatures higher than 100 C , the boiling point of water. 

Pressure Cooker PSI FAQ: the stuff you didn’t think to ask about pressure | hip pressure cooking

*it does not add heat to the equation.*
Correct , it does not add heat to the equation, it simple stops the heat from leaving the system, similar to what co2 does.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.
> ...








Incorrect.  Water vapor has no ability to heat anything.  It RETAINS heat.  It doesn't generate it.  The effect you are noticing with the pressure cooker is, as I said previously,a artifice of the Ideal Gas Laws.  You really should look them up.  Most of what the warmist "scientists" are claiming is due to AGW is due to the Gas Laws and nothing more.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


But it isn't


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely false. The burner on your stove can produce only so much heat. That is the theoretical maximum temperature attainable. However, you lose heat to the atmosphere, and you lose heat through convection of the pan, plus the water takes X amount of heat to warm up in the first place which invariably causes some to turn to water vapor thus carrying the heat away with it etc. You are simply wrong here. All the lid does is allow the water to come to a boil faster because you are removing the outside air which lowers the overall temperature. All a pressure cooker does is concentrate the heat that is presented and make food cook faster, but it does not add heat to the equation. That is a fundamental violation of physics.
> ...



The suns corona is 200 times hotter than the surface, how does that happen?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 26, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



*"Water vapor has no ability to heat anything."*
 1 ) I wrote  "water vapour can't escape the pan heating even more" by which I meant the water got hoter as it absorved more heat from the heat source. 
  2) Any hot body can pass heat to another cooler body through contact.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 26, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Magnetic fields turn the gas into plasma like what happens in a tokamak


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2015)

I am still waiting for any empirically observed evidence to prove any CO2 forcing (man made).


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...




















And energy is lost in the passage.  You are ignoring that fact.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



1. The earth is not a closed system. Using the lid on a boiling pot is a straw man analogy and has no bearing on earths convection cycle..

2. There are five known routes for IR escape from the earth.  CO2 has the ability to affect (retard) just one. The others compensate for the restriction. (complex reactive system).

Still waiting for someone to show me where the man made signal is in the empirical observed unaltered data.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 26, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I am uncertain about the amount of the current heating which is man made. If you want a guess : more than half. 

What is certain is the spike in CO2 and methane is man made.
What effect will such amount of these gases have in the long term (20 years )  is uncertain.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...




Actually man is responsible for more than 100% of the recent heating.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...

















  Care to show us the math for that one!


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...










That's the problem with climatology today.  It is all guesswork and precious little actual facts.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Wow, just wow.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 27, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



 The system depcted is not closed either : it receives heat from the stove and heat escapes from the pot by conduction ( rather slowly) , else the pot would remain hot forever. In reality it will cool of in a couple of hours once the heat is turned off.

Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 27, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Of course , in the Earth there are many more variables at play, but if you want to insist that CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, just take a look at Venus.



I am afraid that you have fallen victim to some misinformation there.  Venus is hot because its atmosphere is 90+ times more dense than ours, not because it is comprised of mostly CO2. 

The venus probe provided some valuable information about venus, but alas, the warmistas, even those in NASA haven't done a very good job with explaining what it means to those not inclined to find out for themselves.....and it doesn't take much effort to learn on your own.

I am guessing that you are familiar with how the climate change establishment describes the greenhouse effect?  Radiation hits the earth, the earth absorbs radiation and emits IR radiation...then, depending on which version you support,  greenhouse gasses either radiate some energy back to the surface of the earth which further warms the earth and causes even more IR or the greenhouse gasses act like a blanket and slow the escape of that IR.

The first problem with assigning a runaway greenhouse effect to venus is that its surface gets virtually no direct sunshine so there is no greenhouse like mechanism for the surface of the planet to radiate IR.  The greenhouse hypothesis says that the effect works by shortwave from the sun warming the ground....not happening on venus.

Then there is the fact that there is almost no difference between the daytime temperatures on venus and the night time temperatures on venus in spite of the fact that the night on venus lasts approximately 1400 hours.

Then there is the fact that the albedo on venus is very high..  So high, in fact, that about 65% of the sunlight that hits venus is immediately reflected by the atmosphere back into space.  The upper atmosphere gets almost twice as much solar radiation as earth (1.9X as much) but because the albedo is more than double that of earth, the upper atmosphere receives a lower TSI than earth.

Then there is the fact that there is almost no water vapor on earth...0.00002% and water vapor is a much more important "greenhouse" gas than CO2 because it absorbs much more of the spectrum...CO2 only absorbs in a very narrow band.

If we had no water vapor in our atmosphere, the equator would experience arctic like temperatures...and the excess CO2 in the atmosphere of venus in no way compensates for the lack of water vapor. 

Finally there is the fact that if you travel up into the atmosphere of venus to an altitude where the pressure is equal to that of earth and compensate for the difference in the amount of solar radiation between venus and earth, the temperature is very similar to that of earth even though the composition of the atmosphere is almost entirely CO2.

You are quite wrong to hold up venus as an example of the greenhouse effect...the temperatures on venus can be explained almost entirely by the atmospheric pressure.


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2015)

Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere?  Oh, please do.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 27, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



What about Venus?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere?  Oh, please do.



Of course it is because of the pressure


----------



## SSDD (Nov 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere?  Oh, please do.
> ...



You had to know that he was going to think that the temperature on venus was because of CO2.....the fact that the atmospheric pressure is 90X that of earth and the fact that if you travel up in the atmosphere till you reach the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure and then compensate for the difference in received solar radiation, the temperature is very close to that of earth....such facts can't penetrate stupid on crick's level.  

He is sure that it is a greenhouse effect even though almost no sunlight reaches the surface to be converted to IR which CO2 can absorb....and the fact that the night time side of the planet is the same temperature as the day time side in spite of the fact that the night on venus is 1400 hours long.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere?  Oh, please do.



Of course its' the pressure you idiot....tell me how you believe a greenhouse effect would work on venus 65% of the sunlight reaching the planet is reflected back into space and virtually zero percent of what's left ever reaches the surface to be converted to IR by absorption and emission. 

By the way....ever get any of that empirical data proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming that you claimed that you had?....or are you still a lying sack?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere?  Oh, please do.



What is it, Crick? Mann's tree rings? Shankun's proxies?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere?  Oh, please do.



AGWCult Theme Song


----------



## SSDD (Nov 27, 2015)

An another thing...earth and venus have almost identical dry lapse rates. On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C.  This tells you that the primary factor determining temperature on venus is the thickness of the atmosphere, not its composition.  

With a constant dry lapse rate an atmosphere twice as think would be twice as warm....an atmosphere three times as thick would be three times as warm...etc. etc.etc.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 27, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Top gun and Home Alone are not critiques on authoritarianism,and thus are not material to this discussion. 1984 is, and answers the question of IF AGW was all a hoax, what the reason would be.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 27, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > From 1984:
> ...



It isn't about panels on a person's roof. it's about carbon use taxes, higher fees for cars not considered "proper" Higher costs for power that are artificially created, and higher costs for goods due to higher energy costs, all due to government diktat, not any market conditions.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 27, 2015)

martybegan said:


> [
> 
> It isn't about panels on a person's roof. it's about carbon use taxes, higher fees for cars not considered "proper" Higher costs for power that are artificially created, and higher costs for goods due to higher energy costs, all due to government diktat, not any market conditions.



And like all liberal ideas, it ends up hurting those who can least afford it the most.  I can afford $5 or $6 a gallon for gas, but what about people who are struggling to buy gas to get to work at $2 a gallon....I can afford a higher electric bill, but what about those people who have to decide whether to pay the electric bill or buy food.  Liberals don't think through their crazy schemes and inevitably hurt the poor the most....or maybe they do think them through and act in such a way to keep a permanent underclass too uneducated to see who is keeping them down voting for "free" goodies.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Where is the evidence to support your supposition!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Thickness of atmosphere and presure is the key play in that event not GHG's. the make up of Venus's atmosphere has little or no water vapor..  its depth is three to five times that of earth and has a level of CO2 that is 95 % of the atmosphere, not 400 parts per million.  This is another straw man argument trying to compare apples to oranges.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2015)

SSDD said:


> An another thing...earth and venus have almost identical dry lapse rates. On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C.  This tells you that the primary factor determining temperature on venus is the thickness of the atmosphere, not its composition.
> 
> With a constant dry lapse rate an atmosphere twice as think would be twice as warm....an atmosphere three times as thick would be three times as warm...etc. etc.etc.



Thank You! The circular logic used by Crick and others is boring and lacks even basic knowledge of thermal dynamics.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Please show us the empirical evidence, the math, and system descriptions which show how you ascertained this!  To my knowledge, not even the IPCC or EPA have done this science work and have clearly stated they do not know.  But some how you have... 

SHOW ME!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 27, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


I didn't know you lived there.  How is the weather today?  What are the sources of your CO2?


----------



## westwall (Nov 27, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...





CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...










Yet again you try and compare an elephant with a fly.  Venus is not hot due to GHGs.  It is hot because of the density of its atmosphere.  Nitrogen (not nitrous oxide) is not a GHG yet if you replaced the Venusian atmosphere's CO2 with nitrogen the temperature would remain the same.  It is not the type of gas it is its density that makes the difference.  You really need to learn some of the basics.


----------



## westwall (Nov 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere?  Oh, please do.









Yes, it's a combination of Venus's atmospheric density (which is 100 times greater than Earth's) and the greenhouse effect (though that effect is almost unecessary due to the density of the atmospher) of the CO2.  The problem with your use of Venus as a monster under the covers is the CO2 content of our atmosphere is thousands of orders of magnitude less than that of Venus.  Venus's atmosphere is over 90% CO2.  It is 100 times denser than our atmosphere to boot.  In our atmosphere CO2 will NEVER reach even 1% of the atmospheric content.  It is physically impossible.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> I didn't know you lived there.  How is the weather today?  What are the sources of your CO2?



Burned dinosaur farts?


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 27, 2015)

westwall said:


> Yes, it's a combination of Venus's atmospheric density (which is 100 times greater than Earth's) and the greenhouse effect (though that effect is almost unecessary due to the density of the atmospher) of the CO2.  The problem with your use of Venus as a monster under the covers is the CO2 content of our atmosphere is thousands of orders of magnitude less than that of Venus.  Venus's atmosphere is over 90% CO2.  It is 100 times denser than our atmosphere to boot.  In our atmosphere CO2 will NEVER reach even 1% of the atmospheric content.  It is physically impossible.



You do realize you'd be better off teaching atmospheric science to a fishtank right?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 27, 2015)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Wait... wait...wait... are you going to claim that Venus' high temperature is from the PRESSURE of its atmosphere?  Oh, please do.
> ...


But no human lives there


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it's a combination of Venus's atmospheric density (which is 100 times greater than Earth's) and the greenhouse effect (though that effect is almost unecessary due to the density of the atmospher) of the CO2.  The problem with your use of Venus as a monster under the covers is the CO2 content of our atmosphere is thousands of orders of magnitude less than that of Venus.  Venus's atmosphere is over 90% CO2.  It is 100 times denser than our atmosphere to boot.  In our atmosphere CO2 will NEVER reach even 1% of the atmospheric content.  It is physically impossible.
> ...



how about this......


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Probes have been sent to check the weather conditions. I'd love to see you become the first Venus explorer so you can check the weather yourself.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



And those probes have verified what we know about that planet.  It lays waste to your straw-man arguments.


----------



## westwall (Nov 27, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it's a combination of Venus's atmospheric density (which is 100 times greater than Earth's) and the greenhouse effect (though that effect is almost unecessary due to the density of the atmospher) of the CO2.  The problem with your use of Venus as a monster under the covers is the CO2 content of our atmosphere is thousands of orders of magnitude less than that of Venus.  Venus's atmosphere is over 90% CO2.  It is 100 times denser than our atmosphere to boot.  In our atmosphere CO2 will NEVER reach even 1% of the atmospheric content.  It is physically impossible.
> ...











I engage in these sorts of discussions because there are MANY who merely observe the discussion but take no part.  I am educating them.  People like CC who pretty obviously is either a true believer, or simply ignorant of science, are actually quite useful.  Those who are ignorant of science ask real questions so they can be educated on the subject.  

True believers on the other hand try and come across as reasonable yet ask the same tired questions over and over and even after you have shown how the science, the actual science, not the computer derived fiction, doesn't add up will still blissfully ignore the discussion and proclaim their undying belief in the volcano Gods.

They are both equally useful.  The seeker of knowledge gets to learn new facts and how science actually works, and the true believer shows the seekers how they are not interested in science at all, and are in fact political operatives.

Seekers aren't stupid, unlike the true believers.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 27, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Billy Bob, 
    I find there is little you can contribute in the way of arguments or ideas. You are on ignore.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 27, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Yes, it is an extreme case comparision. That said , pressure is not the only factor . 
At 50 km of height Venus' atmospheric pressure is equal to earth's , and yet the tempreture is 75 C ( not the 462 of the surface, but still a lot hotter than Earth. 

Indeed the co2 concentration is higher even at 50 km of altitude ( though I haven't find any sources of the exact concentrations at that altitude ) .
Our current concentration of co2 is about  0.4% . The Earth has had much higher concentrations, but not in the short existence of any human like creature. 
So yes, I am still convinced that this high concentration of CO2 , coupled with deforestation are having an effect on weather. If this change will turn into a catastrophe still remains to be seen ( I am waiting until 2020 before doing any judgement, not much we can do anyway as clean energy is barely economically pheasible right now).

Atmosphere of Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## westwall (Nov 27, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...









Not the only factor but by far and away THE dominant factor.  The temperature at altitude is due to the radiation from the surface.  The heat is the same as if you heat a pan and hold your hand above it.  The higher you go the less heat there is.  It is a simple yet accurate analogy and has nothing to do with GHG's and everything to do with how damned hot the surface of Venus is.

Any attempt to use Venus as a analogy for Earth is imbecilic.  The two are so vastly different that the attempt to pair the two exposes either a gross ignorance of science, or outright deception.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Too funny:  I ask you to produce the empirical evidence while providing you with empirical evidence disproving your theroys and you run and hide..

Very telling. Those who disagree with you and can prove their positions with empirical evidence you runaway from.  When your straw-man arguments are torn apart with facts By others and myself, you double down while not fully understanding how these false comparisons fail.

You never once addressed the empirical evidence I provided.Typical alarmist drone. But that has been apparent from the start. 

This is what happens when you expose an alarmist and pin them down... "I'm putting you on Ignore"...  Thank you for telling me I have won this argument!


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 27, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



You need to very careful comparing planets. Our GHouse effect is a finely tuned combination of happy coincidences. The very thin absorption lines of CO2/Methane/ect could be thrown off radically because of small shift in the shape of the planet IR Blackbody radiation spectrum or the incident amount solar energy changed by the large differences in water vapor content. The albedo and the shape and center freq of VENUS's surface IR radiation IS a lot different from Earth.. 

So -- It's truely silly to jump to CO2 as the major and only factor in it's "climate" and compare that to Earth. Unless of course -- you're James Hansen 

Even TINY shifts in the sun's radiation spectrum could change both the downdwelling radiation and the GH insulation factor. IN FACT --- for the past 25 years or so-- we've had space observatories accurately measuring these spectral shifts and are learning that they DO modulate the GH effect at different times of a solar cycle. We MIGHT discover that there are also some LONGER term trends at play..


----------



## jc456 (Nov 27, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


I see you have no answer. But thanks for conceding


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 28, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


FlaCal,
  If Co2 and methane were THE only factors at play , I would agree with you, but there are other factors at play : deforestation , sea acidification due to rapid co2 ( I know we've had higher co2 levels, but the biosphere had thousands of years to adapt not just one century ) , the change in the albedo of snow, the massive extintion of species. 
  The big difference between venus and earth is not just chemical , but the fact that Earth's biosphere plays a significant role in the weather and we are not just messing with co2 or methane , but with a lot of other factors. 
  So again , we are not in an emergency , but I will continue using compact cars and energy saving devices, I benefit from it as well as  the companies that make those products.


----------



## westwall (Nov 28, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...










Acidification is a farce.  Man could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the pH of the ocean would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 still very alkaline.  Deforestation has nothing to do with the climate.  There is no massive extinction of species.  That is likewise a farce.  In the last 10 years there have been over 100,000 new species discovered.  What change in the albedo of snow?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 28, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


good for you. you feel good.  nice.  You're wrong, with your thoughts, but hey, you feel good fkn the poor.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> Acidification is a farce.  Man could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the pH of the ocean would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 still very alkaline.



For as long as the science has existed, "acidification" has been the term for an increase in [H+]. Staring and ending pH is not relevant. Denier attempts to deny that are some recent historical revisionism.

And if you disagree, I suggest you also tell the medical community they're getting it all wrong, as "acidosis" is defined as blood pH falling below 7.35.

Deniers also don't understand water chemistry. pH 7.0 is only the neutral state in one type of system, pure water undergoing strong acid/base interactions. In a system with multiple layers of buffering like the oceans, pH 7.0 is a number of no significance.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Acidification is a farce.  Man could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the pH of the ocean would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 still very alkaline.
> ...


*For as long as the science has existed, "acidification" has been the term for an increase in [H+]. Staring and ending pH is not relevant. Denier attempts to deny that are some recent historical revisionism.*
ah, the old acidification ploy


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



He is now grasping at straws..

Acidifcation is a non issue as a group of AGW scientists has now found, while trying to prove this theroy, that plankton grows so rapidly it consumes more CO2 than the ocean can sequester.  Increased carbon dioxide enhances plankton growth, opposite of what was expected 

Deforestation is a localized event and creates localized changes. it is not global. This shows the conflation between local events and global events.

Extinctions of species is at an all time low according to the paleo records. This is a natural cyclic event. not sure where he is able to make this a man caused event.

Snow Albedo is an easy one. Particulate matter, not CO2 is the issue. Naturally occurring fires and man caused fires will place particulates into the atmosphere which eventually make it to the poles.  The Northerner hemisphere has changed massively in the last 30 years reducing the particulate matter in the arctic region.  It has been seriously reduced and the snow is now near its postindustrial age color again.

The AGW folks dont care that most if not all of their doom and gloom scenarios failed to materialize. Like this alarmist, he is pulling out all of the stops without addressing the failure of his models to predict anything and the empirical evidence which lays waste to the CAGW theroy.  The use of totally bogus comparisons is their game because most dont know how or why heat is higher on Venus when no IR (short or long wave ) makes it to the surface.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



More acidic or more alkalitic (*trending towards* acid or alkali) are the terms used in most all labs.  Even medical people use the terms acidotic and alkalotic.  Lower Ph means it is 'more acidic' or 'trending towards acid' it does not mean it is acid.  Fools like mantooth cant figure it out..


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2..



Interesting, since for most of this planet's history, the average mean temperature has been closer to 22C...quite a bit more than 5 degrees warmer than the present 14.8C.

I can only guess that you never really considered the past when you were forming your present position.  If you did, and still hold an alarmist position, then one can only conclude that you hold your position for political, and not scientific reasons.

As I said, for most of the planet's history, it has been considerably warmer than the 5 degrees that you believe would initiate a temperature spiral...  Here are a couple of accepted reconstructions of the temperature history of the planet.











Note the first graph also includes the atmospheric CO2 levels for the various periods.  Note that the several ice ages earth has experienced; most  began with CO2 levels at, or far in excess of 1000ppm and at least one ice age began with CO2 levels in excess of 4000ppm.  The slide into the ice age we are currently exiting from began with CO2 levels greater than the present. That doesn't really square with the proposed greenhouse hypothesis....does it?  Fearing that CO2 will cause temperatures to spiral out of control when the ice age we are presently exiting began with CO2 levels higher than those at present makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Considering the temperature history of our planet, tell me, what is surprising about the fact that we are in a warming phase....and again, considering the temperature history of the planet, do you really believe there is anything that we can realistically do to prevent the earth's inevitable warmup back to the neighborhood of 22C at some point in the future?


----------



## westwall (Nov 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Acidification is a farce.  Man could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the pH of the ocean would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 still very alkaline.
> ...












When acidification has been tested in an actual lab, and not in your computer fictional world, the response of the various critters has been to grow thicker shells.  Even in levels of acidic water that are orders of magnitude higher than could eve be experienced in the real world.  Whenever there has been a claim that acidification is killing critters in an area the follow ups have ALWAYS shon that the death was due to some other cause.


----------



## westwall (Nov 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...









Yes, more and more it is becoming apparent that CC is a true believer trying to hide beneath a veneer.   It appears actual science doesn't matter to him any more than it does any of the usual suspects here.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> Deforestation has nothing to do with the climate. There is no massive extinction of species. That is likewise a farce. In the last 10 years there have been over 100,000 new species discovered. What change in the albedo of snow?



Lets just get this clear : yes millions of acre of woods and tropical forests are burned every year.  That increases erosion and creates havoc with ecological balance. This in turn reduces the capacity to extract co2 from the atmosphere. 

While the data on CO2 is inconclusive, the fact that millions of species are going the dodo way is not subject to debate. 
Yes 100,000 new species were discovered and 100,000 more will not be discovered because they ceased to exist.
You mentioned buffaloes , 50 million existed three centuries ago , how many of them are left, how many species were they? And they have now been replaced by one single species : cows.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> When acidification has been tested in an actual lab, Even in levels of acidic water that are orders of magnitude higher than could eve be experienced in the real world.  Whenever there has been a claim that acidification is killing critters in an area the follow ups have ALWAYS shon that the death was due to some other cause.



"ALWAYS"? That's a strong claim, and one you don't offer any support for. Fortunately, we can easily put your "ALWAYS" claim to the test. Here's a 2014 example of a paper on real-world observation of shell-thinning due to acidification. Please point us to the data that refutes this study directly. If you can't, your "ALWAYS" claim will look rather dubious.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1785/20140123
*Limacina helicina shell dissolution as an indicator of declining habitat suitability owing to ocean acidification in the California Current Ecosystem*
Bednarsek et al (2014)
---
*Abstract*
Few studies to date have demonstrated widespread biological impacts of ocean acidification (OA) under conditions currently found in the natural environment. From a combined survey of physical and chemical water properties and biological sampling along the Washington–Oregon–California coast in August 2011, we show that large portions of the shelf waters are corrosive to pteropods in the natural environment. We show a strong positive correlation between the proportion of pteropod individuals with severe shell dissolution damage and the percentage of undersaturated water in the top 100 m with respect to aragonite. We found 53% of onshore individuals and 24% of offshore individuals on average to have severe dissolution damage. Relative to pre-industrial CO2 concentrations, the extent of undersaturated waters in the top 100 m of the water column has increased over sixfold along the California Current Ecosystem (CCE). We estimate that the incidence of severe pteropod shell dissolution owing to anthropogenic OA has doubled in near shore habitats since pre-industrial conditions across this region and is on track to triple by 2050. These results demonstrate that habitat suitability for pteropods in the coastal CCE is declining. The observed impacts represent a baseline for future observations towards understanding broader scale OA effects.
---


----------



## westwall (Nov 28, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Deforestation has nothing to do with the climate. There is no massive extinction of species. That is likewise a farce. In the last 10 years there have been over 100,000 new species discovered. What change in the albedo of snow?
> ...












If there are millions of species threatened list 500 that are endangered.  The bison were SHOT.  They didn't suffer from climate change.  And when looking at the species that are endangered not one of them is in danger due to climate change.  They are all endangered due to poaching or loss of habitat.

There was ONE species of American Buffalo.  Now there are two.  The number of American Buffalo is over 450,000 and they have been crossbred to form a new critter called a beefalo.

The claim form you warmists is that climate change is going to kill everything.  That is patently ridiculous.  Climate change has never been shown to kill anything.  Bitter cold has done a great job of killing when there are cold snaps but warmth has not.  All paleo evidence shows beyond doubt that warmth is not the killer you all claim it is.  

The warming that occurred after the Younger Dryas cooling event (which was rapid and catastrophic) was even more rapid than what we are experiencing and guess what.  Nothing died.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I am not SAYING than WG is killing species. 
What I am saying is 

Human activity creates deforestation. 
Human activity creates pollution.
Human activity has created massive species extinction .

deforestation + pollution + massive extinction + methane increase + co2 increase  CAN have VERY different effects on the ecosystem and the weather system than the regular co2 and methane variations that have occured in the past. 
Co2 has been a lot higher in the past, but it was a change that occurred over thousands of years, allowing species to adapt, we do not know if current species will be able to adapt quickly enough to the changes we are setting in motion.

True, Earth has been hotter and warmer than today , but in some extreme cases of weather change up to 99% of the previous species went extinct. The human species went almost extinct 75,000 years ago. It is uncertain if this was an event triggered by the Toba explosion or by other event. But it does leave clear one thing : we humans are not imprevious to natural events. 

Extinction Events That Almost Wiped Out Humans


----------



## westwall (Nov 28, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...










Human activity is indeed deforesting huge areas and I donate money to preserve sections of rain forest every year.  Furthermore I actually support government taking over vast sections of rain forest from private corporations to preserve it.

Yes.  Human activity creates pollution.  Why then does not a single proposal from the IPCC actually address pollution control?  Not one.  The only thing the IPCC (and their corporate backers)
wants is for you to pay (those aformentioned corporate backers) for the privilege of polluting.  If everything was as dire as they claim don't you think there would be some rather draconian measures coming down from on high to reduce actual pollution?   Hmmm?

Define massive extinction.  I can think of maybe 100 species that mankind has directly caused to go extinct.  And almost of that is due to poaching and hunting.

CO2 is not a dangerous gas.  Period.  Anyone who claims otherwise is a moron, a fool or a political operative.  It is plant food and is the basic building block of all life on this planet.  Period.

75% of Earths history has been WARMER than the present day.  Tell the class what that means.

No extinction event has ever been shown to be due to warmth.  On the contrary COLD has been shown to be the proximal cause in at least one mass extinction.  The other events we don't know what caused them but warmth is the least likely cause.

The evidence from the PETM which was far hotter than today, shows that terrestrial life BLOOMED!  Evidence shows that the warming then was just as rapid as today.  You are factually wrong on every account.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



CO2 was also much higher for over 75% of earths existence to date. Its averaged about 1500ppm.. Our current level is not only NOT dangerous but it is low.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Lets just get this clear : yes millions of acre of woods and tropical forests are burned every year.  That increases erosion and creates havoc with ecological balance. This in turn reduces the capacity to extract co2 from the atmosphere.



Did you see the data from OCO?  It was quite clear that the equatorial rain forests are net sources of CO2...not the CO2 sink that you seem to believe that they are.



CultureCitizen said:


> While the data on CO2 is inconclusive, the fact that millions of species are going the dodo way is not subject to debate.



The cause is certainly up for debate...better than 90% of the species that ever existed on earth are extinct and mankind had nothing to do with it....You claim that somehow we are responsible for millions going extinct....I call BULLSHIT....if we are killing millions of species, it should be no problem for you to name...oh...say....150 that are extinct due to climate.....hell name 100 that are extinct due to climate....make it 50....see where this is going?



CultureCitizen said:


> Yes 100,000 new species were discovered and 100,000 more will not be discovered because they ceased to exist.



Any actual data to back that up?  Of course not.  More unfounded, unsupportable garbage...  Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.



CultureCitizen said:


> You mentioned buffaloes , 50 million existed three centuries ago , how many of them are left, how many species were they? And they have now been replaced by one single species : cows.



About a half a million...and it had nothing whatsoever to do with climate change....offering up species that were driven to extinction, or near extinction due to hunting or poaching is a red herring....it is a logical fallacy....it is an attempt to divert attention from the fact that you can't even name 100 species that have gone extinct due to climate change....and further, you can't provide a shred of empirical evidence that supports the claim that mankind is changing the global climate in the first place.

You are on the right track regarding pollution which is a genuine problem that could be addressed and perhaps we might even get something done about it....alas, that can't happen though because the AGW hoax sucks all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers and leaves un financially unable to address the real problems facing mankind and the earth.

Your position is entirely political and not supported by anything like actual science that adheres to the scientific method.  Congratulations.[/QUOTE]


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 28, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Did you see the data from OCO? It was quite clear that the equatorial rain forests are net sources of CO2...not the CO2 sink that you seem to believe that they are.


Does it ?
You should include the article associated with the map and not just the map and draw your own skewed conclusions from it.
"It shows hotspots of carbon dioxide over northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil.
These carbon spikes could be explained by agricultural fires and land clearing — practices that are widespread during spring in the Southern Hemisphere, OCO-2 scientists said."
If you watch the video, you will find they say the map is the average of 5 weeks of data, so that particular map does not tell the whole story.

NASA Satellite's 1st CO2 Maps of Earth Revealed


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 28, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.



That was just figuritative: Yes, many species are discovered, because the exploration of plant and animal species is not finished and is a continuous tasks. Many of those species are difficult to account for ( insects , nematodes, plants ). 

For accounting purposes we should stick to vertebrates, which are way easier to keep track of. 

"Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year"

"Stuart Pimm stated "the current rate of species extinction is about 100 times the natural rate" for plants.[12] Mass extinctions are characterized by the loss of at least 75% of species within a geologically short period of time."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So , there you have the sources, now I would very much like to have any links from your part prooving that we humans are NOT the cause for a mass extinction event.


----------



## westwall (Nov 28, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.
> ...










"May"  Funny how they present no math to support their BS.  I can show you the 100,000 species that have been discovered.  They can't even present us with a single corpse.  You would think that with all of that dying supposedly going on they could trot out at least one.


----------



## westwall (Nov 28, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Any actual data to back that up? Of course not. More unfounded, unsupportable garbage... Clearly you hold your position as a result of politics....nothing whatsoever to do with science led you to where you are now.
> ...










I hate to break it to you but using wiki as your source is less than compelling.  What's funny is even they can't agree on if it is happening, and this is a propaganda piece.  You really need to do better than this.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Ok , let's stick with vertebrates. If of those 100,000 species 90,000 are bacteria, I'm going to be very disapointed. Those critters mutate like hell. 
Quid pro quo. Show me your references.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Do you have any references showing the oposite : current extinction level is business as usual ? 
You are currently supporting your statements with thin air, unless you are a biologist by trade , in whose case I would assume you've written one or two papers about the topic.


----------



## westwall (Nov 28, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...









No.  I am supporting my position based on the fact that YOUR people can't provide one iota of factual data to support what they say.  In science the people making the claim MUST prove it.  It is impossible to prove a negative.  Or didn't you know that?


----------



## westwall (Nov 28, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...







Knock yourself out.  Just follow the years back...

"An international committee of taxonomists selected the top 10 from among the approximately 18,000 new species named during the previous year and released the list to coincide with the May 23 birthday of Carolus Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy."


ESF Top Ten New Species | Top 10 Species | SUNY-ESF


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



With all of their dire predictions it is rather funny to see the words 'may' or 'might' which are never accompanied by a confidence level or percentage that has been backed up by factual empirical evidence. They never put into writing the low level or nonexistent level of certainty.  It is always vague terms and undefinable dangers. 

CC refuses to produce the definable data, math and methods for anything he posts. I am still waiting for the data, math and methods he is using to claim AGW is a danger to anyone and in need of de-growthing the US economy or standard of living for.

The wild claims are now totally ludicrous and not backed by any real science.


----------



## westwall (Nov 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...









Yup.  It might get super dooper warm.  Has about the same probability as a Volcano God not erupting thanks to a virgin sacrifice.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 29, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Not acceptable. 
  I agree there's quite a debate amongst the scientific community about whether or not weather warming is caused by human activity and the role of CO2,  but you will not find any scientific claiming human triggered extinction is a hoax. No sir. 

"It is not imposible to proove a negative", that's inaccurate . It is imposible to prove a universal negative . 

Proove the world is NOT flat : cakewalk. 
Prove there are NO pink elephants : hard as hell because you have to sample every existing elephant. 

Many species are too small to be counted efectively so , I would rather reduce the discussion to vertebrates which are easier to count. 
So here it goes :vertebrates populations declining by 30% in 40 years. 

"The Evolution Lost report, published in the journal Science by more than 100 of the world's leading zoologists and botanists, found that populations of mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and fish species had declined by an average of 30% in the past 40 years."

"Future extinctions risks are projected to be high, but the biodiversity crisis is much more than extinctions,"

One-fifth of world's back-boned animals face extinction, study warns


----------



## westwall (Nov 29, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...









Did you even bother to look at the cause?  I highlighted it for you....  

"A separate study coordinated by the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew suggested that just over one-fifth of plant species are threatened – mostly in the tropics – due to man-made *habitat loss*. But the extent of the risk remains unclear.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

That does nothing but support his contention.  Where is your evidence that extinction rates are at normal levels?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> That does nothing but support his contention.  Where is your evidence that extinction rates are at normal levels?



Where are the bodies that would prove that extinction rates are above normal?  For all the claims of mass extinctions, those making the claims don't seem to have many corpses...as usual, all they have are computer models which people are suppose to accept with the same faith as they would with actual corpses?  Sorry....again, the opposite of skeptical is gullible and you certainly aren't skeptical.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Do you have any references showing the oposite : current extinction level is business as usual ?
> You are currently supporting your statements with thin air, unless you are a biologist by trade , in whose case I would assume you've written one or two papers about the topic.



All you seem to have are computer models...where are the bodies...can you provide any actual, observed proof that extinction is happening at the rate you claim?


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

Duck and dodge like a fucking PRO!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 29, 2015)

Mann's tree ring says the extinction rates are Super High!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 29, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Did you see the data from OCO? It was quite clear that the equatorial rain forests are net sources of CO2...not the CO2 sink that you seem to believe that they are.
> ...



It tells 5 weeks of the story, the next 5 weeks shows the concentration are high above the Arctic Circle-- then NASA goes dark

You might not like that burning the rain forests is the main causes CO2, but that's just tough on you

You not liking a data set does not negate it


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> Duck and dodge like a fucking PRO!



Sorry guy, I am afraid that it is you and yours who are ducking and dodging....We asked to see the bodies...or some observational evidence of a mass extinction....none will be forthcoming...why, because like the empirical evidence proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming, it does not exist...it is entirely the product of computer models...models which, by the way, are based on unproven assumptions.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2015)

You ask to see the bodies and claim that's from your need for empirical data?.  Are you actually that stupid?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> You ask to see the bodies and claim that's from your need for empirical data?.  Are you actually that stupid?




You claim a mass extinction is happening...wiping out tens of thousands of species but you can't even name 50...and yet you apparently believe the claim....are you actually that stupid?  Let me answer...of course you are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 29, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You ask to see the bodies and claim that's from your need for empirical data?.  Are you actually that stupid?
> ...



"About *8.7 million* (give or take *1.3 million*) is the new, estimated total number of species on Earth -- the most precise calculation ever offered -- with 6.5 million species on land and 2.2 million in oceans"

Google

But for global climate warming change, there's be BEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelions of species; I know it, the models confirm it


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> You ask to see the bodies and claim that's from your need for empirical data?.  Are you actually that stupid?


Are you actually that naive?  You believe fantasy models and when you are asked for real proof you have NONE!

That lack of empirical evidence is called NOT HAVING SCIENCE to back up your claims! Computer models are SWAG (WILD ASS GUESSes - with very little science)


----------



## westwall (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> That does nothing but support his contention.  Where is your evidence that extinction rates are at normal levels?






The claim is that AGW is causing the dying.  That is unsupported by ANY empirical data.  Whenever the cause of a particular critters stress is looked at it is NEVER AGW related, it is invariably habitat loss.  Habitat loss COULD be controlled if you assholes weren't stealing all of the money that could be otherwise used for habitat preservation.  Instead, your corporate masters want the peoples money, the politicians want the power that comes with the laws they get to pass and the environment continues to suffer because you assholes don't care about the environment.  It is merely a tool that you use for political gain.


----------



## westwall (Nov 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> Duck and dodge like a fucking PRO!








No.  You have made the claim.  If there was a mass extinction going on there would be corpses littering the globe.  The fact that there aren't says that the idea we are in a global holocaust is ridiculous.


----------



## westwall (Nov 29, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You ask to see the bodies and claim that's from your need for empirical data?.  Are you actually that stupid?
> ...








He's not naive.  Science doesn't matter to him because he's a political operative.  Facts don't matter one bit to people like him.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 29, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



As far as I can recall we were not debating the cause, rather the effects of human activity. 
I fail to see your point . Can you ellaborate ?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 29, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



"These carbon spikes could be explained by agricultural fires and land clearing — practices that are widespread during spring in the Southern Hemisphere, OCO-2 scientists said."

It is not the rain forest causing CO2 but human activity. 
Do you have reading comprehension problems Frank ?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> As far as I can recall we were not debating the cause, rather the effects of human activity.
> I fail to see your point . Can you ellaborate ?


Because there are real problems facing us....pollution, deforestation....land misuse....problems that we could address and probably make headway towards correcting...but nothing can get done because the AGW hoax is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers....they are talking about over a trillion dollars in taxes and fees that may, assuming the AGW hypothesis is correct (and I don't believe it for a second) make a fraction of a degree difference per century....the cost to benefit ration makes it a losing proposition....all that money put towards things that might actually make a difference makes far more sense don't you think?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 29, 2015)

SSDD said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I can recall we were not debating the cause, rather the effects of human activity.
> ...



Sory , you are preaching to the wrong guy , I had already agreed on the fact that these problems have to be addressed and we should wait until we have more conclusive data on the co2 problem (I arbitrarily set the date to 2020)  before taking any taxing measures.

That said , I see no harm in going green on individual level : using a solar heater or solar cell in your roof, and using a fuel efficient car, and going vegan or reducing meat consumption as an individual choice ( probably a healthy choice if you are eating a pound of meat per day).


----------



## OnePercenter (Nov 29, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?



Keep in mind that the companies that cause global warming spend billions to influence conservative politicians. The non-politician conservatives are mere sheep.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 29, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



OK, so why are you going after American industries instead of subsistence farmers?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> That said , I see no harm in going green on individual level : using a solar heater or solar cell in your roof, and using a fuel efficient car, and going vegan or reducing meat consumption as an individual choice ( probably a healthy choice if you are eating a pound of meat per day).



I don't use solar or wind and am not likely to...I shouldn't have to if we aren't worrying about CO2...the power systems we have work just fine if warmers don't tax them so high that the poor really do have to decide whether to eat or pay the power bill...I drive a diesel truck and probably eat a pound of one flesh or another every day...of course I catch or kill most of it myself but that's beside the point.

I don't want to be told what to do so long as I am not stepping on someone else's rights....if you want to deny yourself, by all means, go ahead.  I support your choices 100% but don't expect for me to make the same choices....don't expect for me to do anything other than respect your right to make your own choices.


----------



## Muhammed (Nov 29, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?


Of course it's a hoax. That's been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever in the minds of intelligent people. As far as motives, i'm sure there are a plethora of them.


----------



## Vigilante (Nov 29, 2015)

*Carly Fiorina Slams 'Delusional' Obama, Left for Pushing Climate Change as National Security Threat*
NewsBusters.org ^ | November 29, 2015 | Curtis Houck
Appearing on November 29th Fox News Sunday, 2016 Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina slammed President Barack Obama and his allies as “delusional” for continually pushing the notion that climate change is a chief national security threat for the United States and the world at-large.  Fiorina was asked about the issue by host Chris Wallace in context of this upcoming week’s United Nations climate change summit in Paris and the argument that addressing climate change makes the world safer and rebukes Islamic terrorists. Carly Fiorina Slams 'Delusional' Obama, Left for Pushing Climate Change as National Security Threat The GOP candidate immediately...


----------



## westwall (Nov 29, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...










I refer you to your OP title.......  

*"Assuming it was a hoax, what would be the goal of the global warming hoax"*

It is the assumption of every person pushing for the globalization, and regulation of all of mankind that humans are responsible for global warming and that global warming is the root cause of everything bad that is happening on the planet from prostitution to terrorism.  The list of things that have been blamed on global warming is quite amusing to behold.

"Acne , Longer plane flights , agricultural land increase , Afghan poppies destroyed , Africa devastatedAfrica in conflict , African aid threatened , African summer frost , aggressive weeds , More Toxic Poison Ivy , air pressure changes , airport malaria , Agulhas current , Alaska reshaped , moves , allergy season longer , alligators in the Thames , Alps melting , Amazon a desert , American dream end , amphibians breeding earlier (or not) ,anaphylactic reactions to bee stings , ancient forests dramatically changed , animals head for the hills , animals shrink , Antarctic grass flourishes , Antarctic ice grows , Antarctic ice shrinks , Antarctic sea life at risk , anxiety treatment , algal blooms , archaeological sites threatened , Arab Spring , Arctic bogs melt , Arctic in bloom , Arctic ice free , Arctic ice melt faster , Arctic lakes disappear , Arctic tundra to burn , Arctic warming (not)Atlantic less salty , Atlantic more salty , atmospheric circulation modified , attack of the killer jellyfish , avalanches reduced ,avalanches increased , Baghdad snow , Bahrain under water , bananas grow , barbarisation , beer shortage , beetle infestation , bet for $10,000 , better beer , big melt faster , billion dollar research projects , billion homeless ,billions face risk , billions of deaths , bird distributions change , bird loss accelerating , birds shrinking , bird strikes, bird visitors drop , birds confused , birds decline (Wales) , birds driven north , birds return early , bittern boom ends , blackbirds stop singing , blackbirds threatened , Black Hawk down , blood contaminated , blue mussels return , bluetongue , brain eating amoebae , brains shrink , bridge collapse (Minneapolis) , Britain one big city ,Smaller loaves of Bread , Britain Siberian , brothels struggle , brown Ireland , bubonic plague , budget increases ,"
A Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming


----------



## westwall (Nov 29, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...











How much of the entire yearly CO2 budget of the world is generated by man?  After you have answered that question you will understand why that statement is retarded.


----------



## westwall (Nov 29, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...










Why tax?  Why not legislate truly draconian measures to reduce CO2.  If it is truly as dangerous as you claim then taxing merely enriches the one percenters but does absolutely nothing to solve the supposed problem of CO2 increase.  That is the ultimate proof to me that it is all a fraud.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 29, 2015)

westwall said:


> It is the assumption of every person pushing for the globalization, and regulation of all of mankind that humans are responsible for global warming and that global warming is the root cause of everything bad that is happening on the planet from prostitution to terrorism.



That's a lunatic conspiracy theory on your part. Normal people don't rave about phantom globalists hiding in the bushes. 

Nor do normal people rely on making up strawmen about what others supposedly believe. I don't believe any of the crap you say I have to believe, hence I know with 100% certainty that you're lying about me. The same goes for most of the people on the planet. Since most everyone knows you're lying about them, why would you expect anyone to pay any attention to you?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 29, 2015)

westwall said:


> How much of the entire yearly CO2 budget of the world is generated by man?  After you have answered that question you will understand why that statement is retarded.



Given that you just demonstrated how you don't understand how an equilibrium system works, why would you expect anyone to take you seriously? You literally fail at the most basic science.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 29, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Ahem
  Taxing - wearingly burdensome:
  So , you were saying ?

the definition of taxing


----------



## CultureCitizen (Nov 29, 2015)

OnePercenter said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...



So , I've heard. Regardless , the spirit of the thread was intended to know what the evil plan was about. I've got my answers:
  - Increase government control over people's life (plausible , but weak, since the NSA has demonstrated there are other ways to achieve such control)
  - Destroy the economy ( kind of weak also , given bank de-regulation works faster for such means)
  - Self aggrandizement from scientists ( plausible )

The thread has derailed since. Time to let it rest in peace.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Keep in mind that the companies that cause global warming spend billions to influence conservative politicians. The non-politician conservatives are mere sheep.



So , I've heard. Regardless , the spirit of the thread was intended to know what the evil plan was about. I've got my answers:
  - Increase government control over people's life (plausible , but weak, since the NSA has demonstrated there are other ways to achieve such control)
  - Destroy the economy ( kind of weak also , given bank de-regulation works faster for such means)
  - Self aggrandizement from scientists ( plausible )

The thread has derailed since. Time to let it rest in peace.[/QUOTE]

Assuming that you are still looking at this thread.....a question.

What do you think motivates people?  What do you think is at the root of motivation to do a thing...to do anything?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 30, 2015)

martybegan said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Authoritarianism isnt material to this discussion either.  Just because you like to repeat it without expounding on what that control is then you still have nothing.

Control!

Control What?

YOU!

How?

Yanno, Authoritarian communist liberal indoctrination Anti-America uh uh...hatred pro-terrorist ummmm.....


----------



## martybegan (Nov 30, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



it's always about control and power, again you watermelons failed to implement socialism via yammering about class and capital, now you are trying it using weather and temperature.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 30, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Acidification is a farce.  Man could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the pH of the ocean would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 still very alkaline.
> ...



No one is arguing about neutral PH numbers or buffered systems. We barely understand the NATURAL daily/annual variations in ecosystem PH values and yet -- are absolutely panicked about a couple tenths of PH change largely being a surface effect. 

The other observation is that as surface water WARMS, the acidification effect will fall. You cannot have both apocalyptic visions -- pick one..


----------



## westwall (Nov 30, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How much of the entire yearly CO2 budget of the world is generated by man?  After you have answered that question you will understand why that statement is retarded.
> ...











Ummmm, probably because it was you who failed the basic science, admiral.


----------



## westwall (Nov 30, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...





CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...








And your point is what?  My point is if the situation was as dire as you all say it is I would think that draconian measures would be implemented to control it.  Instead you support taxes that enrich the already super rich, impoverishes the middle class, and does nothing to actually reduce pollution.  

Sounds like a winner if I am one of the one percenters but it sounds like I am getting royally screwed if I am not.


----------



## westwall (Nov 30, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...










Increase government through a multitude of regulations which we are already witnessing with the EPA and other Federal agencies using rules to get around the requirement of have legislators actually pass laws.

Destroy the economy.  Here is the mantra of the enviro movement today...."

The trouble is, offsetting our consumer lifestyle won’t get us to where we need to go. _*We need to consume far less, move away from a growth-centric economic system and reduce the human population *_– all of which will take bold institutional changes, not a credit card upgrade."

In other words, reduce the size of the economy and reduce the number of people.  The population reduction is a common thread amongst all of them which was smart thinking in the 1960's but in light of new technologies, and the fact that the population is stabilizing, demographers now say the population will top out at 9 billion and then drop back down to 6 billion (all without a single draconian measure taken other than in China).

And finally self agrandizment.  How else could otherwise poor scientists make so much money (Mann has over 30 million tax payer dollars in his bank account and he can't even do simple stats) in so little time and become the darlings of media than by promulgating this crap.  And what's worse is it becomes more and more obvious that they really have no clue they are going to fight ever harder to maintain their status because when the their fall comes it will be long and hard.....and they know it..


----------



## mamooth (Nov 30, 2015)

westwall said:


> Ummmm, probably because it was you who failed the basic science, admiral.



Yet I understand how an equilibrium system works, and you don't.

Let me try to dumb it down sufficiently so that even you can grasp it.

If I make $1000 a week and spend $1000 a week, my bank account remains the same. Equilibrium system.

If I make $1010 a week and spend $1000 a week, my bank account rises by $520 a year, even though my income has only increased 1%. The equilibrium has been perturbed.

CO2 in the atmosphere works the same way.

What about that is so hard to grasp? Grade schoolers can understand it. Why can't you?


----------



## westwall (Nov 30, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ummmm, probably because it was you who failed the basic science, admiral.
> ...








No, no you don't.  That is patently obvious.  Along with your claims of being a nuclear watch officer in the Navy, a position that doesn't exist, it is quite obvious you don't know shit from shinola.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 30, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> No one is arguing about neutral PH numbers or buffered systems. We barely understand the NATURAL daily/annual variations in ecosystem PH values and yet -- are absolutely panicked about a couple tenths of PH change largely being a surface effect.



"Those scientists don't know nuffin'!" conspiracy theory.



> The other observation is that as surface water WARMS, the acidification effect will fall. You cannot have both apocalyptic visions -- pick one..



Ignorance of Henry's Law.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 30, 2015)

westwall said:


> No, no you don't.  That is patently obvious.



It's patently obvious that you don't know how an equilibrium system works, as I just demonstrated, and that now you want to deflect from your failure.



> Along with your claims of being a nuclear watch officer in the Navy, a position that doesn't exist, it is quite obvious you don't know shit from shinola.



Yep, you're back to that ugly old deflection that you use when you can't address the science.

Remember how that eventually ended? I took it to the military forum, I let the other vets know you were a vet-spitter, and you  were curiously unwilling to stand by your accusations in front of an audience of vets. If you'd like, we can do that again. I won't address your vet-spitting sleaze here, but I will gladly go over it point by point in front of an audience of fellow vets.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> That does nothing but support his contention.  Where is your evidence that extinction rates are at normal levels?


Where's yours to show it's more than normal?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 30, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


he was looking for your dead bodies.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 30, 2015)

OnePercenter said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
> ...


keep in mind that the federal government funded many studies to which no observed empirical data was ever produced.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 30, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It is the assumption of every person pushing for the globalization, and regulation of all of mankind that humans are responsible for global warming and that global warming is the root cause of everything bad that is happening on the planet from prostitution to terrorism.
> ...


and I know with 100% certainty that you are lying about climate.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 30, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


funny, you derailed it.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 30, 2015)

martybegan said:


> it's always about control and power, again you watermelons failed to implement socialism via yammering about class and capital, now you are trying it using weather and temperature.









ClosemindedCaption is a typical CFAG drone. He will parrot asinine bullshit until the welfare checks stop coming and he has to find a real job to keep his internet service.

He would starve to death during a coronal mass ejection if some ghetto rats don't cannibalize him.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 30, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> So , I've heard. Regardless , the spirit of the thread was intended to know what the evil plan was about. I've got my answers:
> - Increase government control over people's life (plausible , but weak, since the NSA has demonstrated there are other ways to achieve such control)
> - Destroy the economy ( kind of weak also , given bank de-regulation works faster for such means)
> - Self aggrandizement from scientists ( plausible )
> ...



You really didn't want to hear or believe there were plausible answers. You want to believe international leftists truly endeavor to save humanity and the earth from detrimental effects caused through some sinister plot by American capitalists to enrich themselves at the expense of society. 

You hate the fact that a handful of investors can establish a steel mill employing thousands, with a profit margin that makes it worthwhile as long as the workers are productive because those workers are being "exploited", but you're content with bullshit fraudulent companies who employ a few hundred people that eventually get laid off and have to seek government subsistence as long as they're doing it in the pursuit of "green" technology. You say you're offended by such corruption, but you insist it must continue by promoting the hoax of MMGW.

One thing that stuck out to me was your mention of the NSA. The NSA doesn't control shit. They have no control over anyone and all they are useful for is data collection. They have not done one single thing about how people communicate or move around the earth. They have failed to prevent attacks on our people such as on Ft Hood and the Boston Marathon in spite of numerous warnings.

Lets talk about "bank deregulation" for a moment, or better yet bank regulation. The "Community Reinvestment Act" FORCED banks to make housing loans backed up by federal dollars to people who couldn't fill out a credit application without help let alone a credit check, so lets please stop the bullshit about "deregulation". If there is a more incompetent gagglefuck of imbeciles on earth, or a more sinister mafia of criminals outside of the US capitol let me know, but if you're comfortable letting these assholes "regulate" the economy you're huffing some really strong paint fumes.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Dec 1, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Just pointing out you were not applying correctly the adjective taxing. 
... I didn't mention the need of any draconian measures by the by , read again.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Dec 1, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Well ,yes, basically what I said. The only really strong argument is the self aggrandizement part. A common human trait.

Control - nah, the NSA can already see us every time we fart poop or pee, why bother with such a complicated scheme ?

Birth control- yup , that would also be plausible , but that's not a bad thing:  The XX century was quite wild in population growth terms, it jumped from 1.6 billion to 6 billion, the current population is 7 b and it will continue growing to 10 b, but mostly in Africa.  Europe is already stable and the American continent is on its way. I am quite sure the Earth would not support a birth rate as  explosive as the past century :  that would mean 24 billion people in the Earth by the end of the XXI century. And even if the Earth could stand that amount of humans it would be too crowded. 
And it's more a population control than reduction. Reduction would be what Stalin or Hitler achieved.... and they did it with the part of the world that didn't need birth control. 

Anyhow, I've gotten my answers, so I'll be leaving the thread for a while... unless something interesting is posted ( like your carbon rise after temperature  rise post you made ).


----------



## westwall (Dec 1, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...









Refer to your OP.  If it is a hoax what is the purpose?   The purpose is theft.  If there were as much real concern as they claim the solution would not be to tax and then do nothing else.  That is the proof that it is a hoax.   Wake up.


----------



## westwall (Dec 1, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...











Europe is dropping.  Africa and India are increasing.  Japan, China and most of the rest of Asia is on the verge of a huge drop.  The US is only increasing because of illegal immigration.  The whole meme that population control is needed is a lie.  Your constant referral to the NSA as a arm of control is illustrative that you either don't care to discuss truthfully or are in favor of the controls that are already in place and those that are coming.

So yeah, you're done.


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2015)

hoax?

what govt project does not find evidence for its own continuation? if it doesnt meet its original objectives it simply revises the objectives.

HeadStart in the US was supposed to improve IQ in impoverished minority children. when that didnt happen, they simply said it was a good thing to socialize them. the funding goes on as before, or increases.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2015)

Im wondering why culture citizen didn't answer my question....

I'll ask again....What do you think motivates people?  Answer that question honesty and you will have the answer to why anyone does anything....then all you need do is look at the specifics.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Dec 2, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Im wondering why culture citizen didn't answer my question....
> 
> I'll ask again....What do you think motivates people?  Answer that question honesty and you will have the answer to why anyone does anything....then all you need do is look at the specifics.



Ah , well , I've mostly lost interest in the thread ... I've been working on the math of the amount of money required to go 100% renewable...right now it would have to be a 50 year project ( it's kind of expensive , so a bit of caution seems to be in order ). 

Regarding your questions. Each person has different motivations at different points of their lives . That's my point of view. Although one friend of mine had a twisted reasoning by which even altruism was some kind of self interest. His reasoning : aha , then your brain rewards you for altruism, so there's always self interest as a motivator. The failure in his reasoning of course is that then you get a very fuzzy definition of self interest, so you've just moved the problem one step backward .
Then we get : self-interest , anything that satisfy your interests ( tautologic ) . so it boils down to what are your intersts : peace ? war? drugs? money? women? men? friendship? partying? art? food?


----------



## westwall (Dec 2, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Im wondering why culture citizen didn't answer my question....
> ...









The math has already been done.  Low estimate is 76 trillion dollars.  You can find the full report here....


http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2015)

1) The avoidance of pain
2) Survival
3) Reproduction

PS, the majority of the cost of reducing our carbon emissions is not going in to the pockets of climate scientists. 

How about an estimate of what the fossil fuel industry looks to lose should we shut them down over the next 30 years or so?  You'd think that would motivate then to do SOMETHING.  So... what have they done about it?  What has been the response of the fossil fuel industries to the news( that that their own scientists told them in the early 1980s) that CO2 emissions are going to cost us hundreds of trillions of dollars and them their very existence?  Nothing?  Don't make me laugh.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> [
> 
> Regarding your questions. Each person has different motivations at different points of their lives .......
> 
> .......Then we get : self-interest , anything that satisfy your interests ( tautologic ) . so it boils down to what are your intersts : peace ? war? drugs? money? women? men? friendship? partying? art? food?



Self interest is indeed the answer....It is all about what is in it for me.  Even Mother Theresa acted out of self interest...her actions brought her closer to her God...there was something deeply satisfying  in it for her....

Once you know that self interest and what's in it for me is the driving factor behind the AGW hoax, all you need do is look at each player and see what he or she is getting out of it.  For some, it is just keeping a job....publish or perish and it is well known that if you go along with the game, both publishing and grant money are easy...for some it is the limelite...for some it is political power....there are as many reasons for maintaining the AGW narrative as there are people who are maintaining it.  Looking for some overarching unifying reason to keep the narrative going is a waste of time...there isn't one....other than there is something in keeping it going for each individual who is doing his part.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> 1) The avoidance of pain
> 2) Survival
> 3) Reproduction
> 
> PS, the majority of the cost of reducing our carbon emissions is not going in to the pockets of climate scientists..



How would you like to have even a small piece of 76 trillion dollars....playing with other people's money...


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2015)

I already have a small piece of 76 trillion dollars that comes from other people's money.  It's the salary from my job.  God are stupid.  And a dick.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> I already have a small piece of 76 trillion dollars that comes from other people's money.  It's the salary from my job.  God are stupid.  And a dick.



And is your job to disseminate the AGW Cult Party line?


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2015)

Frank, Frank, Frank.  I have a job.  It has nothing to do with global warming or posting on this stupid board.  The salary I am paid for it is a small part of 76 trillion dollars.  I didn't say it was a small part of THE 76 trillion dollars.  Get it? C'mon, try harder.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> 1) The avoidance of pain
> 2) Survival
> 3) Reproduction
> 
> ...



Shutting down fossil fuels will have no effect on the US economy either, right Genius?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> Frank, Frank, Frank.  I have a job.  It has nothing to do with global warming or posting on this stupid board.  The salary I am paid for it is a small part of 76 trillion dollars.  I didn't say it was a small part of THE 76 trillion dollars.  Get it? C'mon, try harder.



You said it, but you didn't say it.  OK. Typical Crick response


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2015)

Yeah.  It was a comment expecting a certain level of intelligence from the reader Frank.  I probably wouldn't have made it if I'd thought I was talking to second graders.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Dec 2, 2015)

SSDD said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



But then you miss the point where people might just want to breath cleaner air and drink unpoluted water ( that is still self interest) .
The biggest polluter in the world is no longer the US   , but China. I expect them to take the lead in renewable energy in the comming years.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Dec 2, 2015)

westwall said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Westwall,
  The document is a bit dated given the pace at which technology is advancing. In 5 years both storage and solar cell prices have been dropping dramatically.
My numbers follow :
Solar cells : 14 Trillion
Inverters  : 7 Trillion
Storage : 5 Trillion
Misc : 3 Trillion
Total : 29 Trillion.

I am getting a levelized cost of $85 per Mw, this seems to be consistent with current calculations. Just a few years ago this cost was $120 per Mw. So I'll reiterate : we can wait 5 years for the tech to get cheaper before rushing into renewables.
Some caveats about my calculations : I assumed current nuclear and hydro facilities will still be in use ( I see no reason to decomission them ), so only 70% of energy sources would be replaced.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Have you been following the collapse of fossil fuel prices?  You think that's good for "Alternatives"?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 2, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


with what renewable solution?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Dec 2, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Exactly how long do you think Saudis will be able to keep with their overproduction ?
I give it four years as a maximum , but US shale oil industry will be long dead before that. A mixed blessing : not excatly good news from the emplyment viewpoint , but good from the ecologial point of view.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Saudis? what? Who? US Shale dead?! Wow

You're as wrong as Paul "Wrong in the trillions column" Krugman


----------



## CultureCitizen (Dec 2, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


  Indeed, precisely because of krugman : shale boomed with zirp and entered into a ponzi production scheme. But that ended with $50 per barrel prices.  Production started declining by mid 2015 and will continue to decline through all 2016.
It is to be expected that the OPEC will then try to keep prices below the break-even price of shale which is around $80.
This is slightly inconvenient for renewables : electric cars need a $86 per barrel to reach break-even price with current technology.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> But then you miss the point where people might just want to breath cleaner air and drink unpoluted water ( that is still self interest) .



Then they are going about it in entirely the wrong way....the AGW hoax sucks all the air out of the room and all the treasures out of the coffers.  Nothing is going to be done about the very real, and addressable problem of pollution till the AGW hoax is put to rest.



IanC said:


> The biggest polluter in the world is no longer the US   , but China. I expect them to take the lead in renewable energy in the comming years.



Energy isn't the largest source of pollution...pretending that if we can just use renewables that the pollution problem will end is nothing more than self serving mental masturbation.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Dec 2, 2015)

SSDD said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > But then you miss the point where people might just want to breath cleaner air and drink unpoluted water ( that is still self interest) .
> ...



Let's just call them green ( renewable and recycable ) for the sake of discussion. 
Anyway. China is mostly burning coal and they have a very big pollution problem. Sooner than later , they will have to address the problem or face the consequences directly in their health. 
That said , I'm not pushing green tech until the levelized cost breaks the $60 per Mwh barrier ( currently it's $86).


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2015)

We are a very long way from being able to rely on renewables....there will be no viable alternative to the energy sources we use now till such time as there is a genuine profit motive in coming up with something different....you can't subsidize your way to innovation.  Just take a look at the number of failures that this administration alone has financed.  Subsidies, and tax breaks are not what is going to bring about a new source of energy...a real profit motive...one that will have the potential of making bazillions of dollars...and that isn't going to happen so long as there is plenty of the stuff that we are used to using now...

By the way...that $86 per MWh figure is not real....it is a fantasy number.  The true cost is about double that.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Dec 2, 2015)

SSDD said:


> We are a very long way from being able to rely on renewables....there will be no viable alternative to the energy sources we use now till such time as there is a genuine profit motive in coming up with something different....you can't subsidize your way to innovation.  Just take a look at the number of failures that this administration alone has financed.  Subsidies, and tax breaks are not what is going to bring about a new source of energy...a real profit motive...one that will have the potential of making bazillions of dollars...and that isn't going to happen so long as there is plenty of the stuff that we are used to using now...
> 
> By the way...that $86 per MWh figure is not real....it is a fantasy number.  The true cost is about double that.


Ivanpah plant has a levelized cost of $72, the caveat is it  has practically no storage capacity.
If enough batteries were added to cover 1% of the anual production the levelized cost would rise above $110.
Storage is the achiles heel of renewable. So again, I'm not pushing it until there is an acceptable proven large scale solution. Pumped hydro and compressed gas seem to be promissing , but there's nothing more than prototypes right now.

Ivanpah Solar Production Up 170% in 2015

Aquion bateries : $0.21 per kwh renewable storage. Probably better than the powerwall in the long run.
Tesla Powerwall & Powerpacks Per-kWh Lifetime Prices vs Aquion Energy, Eos Energy, & Imergy
Note , I had to correct the storage figures. Storage IS VERY expensive right now


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 2, 2015)

SSDD said:


> ..a real profit motive...one that will have the potential of making bazillions of dollars...



Thank God we still have some Republican capitalism and the prospect of making bazillions to encourage the entire planet to work on it. Imagine if we had to rely on a tiny soviet design bureaus or two to solve the energy problem.


----------



## westwall (Dec 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> 1) The avoidance of pain
> 2) Survival
> 3) Reproduction
> 
> ...


Of course not.   It's going into the pockets of their corporate masters.  Duh....


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2015)

CultureCitizen said:


> Ivanpah plant has a levelized cost of $72, the caveat is it  has practically no storage capacity.



The subsides for that power plant are outrageous....to suggest that it generates energy at $72 is to be astoundingly ignorant of the economics...



CultureCitizen said:


> If enough batteries were added to cover 1% of the anual production the levelized cost would rise above $110.



Again, the subsides drive the actual cost to astronomical levels....if it were a viable source of energy,  no subsidy would be required....they could get by on the same tax breaks all real energy producers get by on.  Even now the company is begging for cash from the government to keep from going under...loans are coming due and there is no money to pay them...the Ivanpah plant is nothing more than a great big shiny money hole....interesting that you are unwilling to look at that fact square on.  it is a blight on the desert and an effective bird killing machine.  For someone who professes to be concerned about the environment, it is surprising that you can turn a blind eye to the incredible environmental damage that renewables cause.



CultureCitizen said:


> Storage is the achiles heel of renewable. So again, I'm not pushing it until there is an acceptable proven large scale solution. Pumped hydro and compressed gas seem to be promissing , but there's nothing more than prototypes right now.



No...it's cost...and gross inefficiency....if renewables were an up and coming thing...governemnt funds would not be necessary.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Dec 3, 2015)

SSDD said:


> The subsides for that power plant are outrageous....to suggest that it generates energy at $72 is to be astoundingly ignorant of the economics...


The probably costed 2.2 B, maybe more 2.5 and  generates 3% of its output using gas.
If it receives other subsidies then post the links.


----------



## Crick (Dec 4, 2015)

SSDD said:


> No...it's cost...and gross inefficiency....if renewables were an up and coming thing...governemnt funds would not be necessary.



Have you got some actual data to back that up?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No...it's cost...and gross inefficiency....if renewables were an up and coming thing...governemnt funds would not be necessary.
> ...




Yeah...the lack of actual private investors jumping into renewables because they are such a fine investment...good investments don't require billions in government subsidies....seems you know about as much about economics as you do about reading graphs....nothing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 7, 2015)

*Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2015

Renewables Re-energized: Green Energy Investments Worldwide Surge 17% to $270 Billion in 2014*

According to  UNEP's 9th "Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2015", prepared by the Frankfurt School-UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance and Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Bloomberg New Energy Finance — the past year brought a rebound of green energy investments worldwide with a surge of a solid 17% to $270 Billion. Brushing aside the challenge of sharply lower crude oil prices this sudden increase reveresed the investment dip of the past two years and was mainly driven by investments in solar and wind energy.

*Well now, SSDD, perhaps you should post something to back up your flap-yap. Because it looks like you haven't a clue as the real situation on investment in renewable energy.*


----------



## jc456 (Dec 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2015
> 
> Renewables Re-energized: Green Energy Investments Worldwide Surge 17% to $270 Billion in 2014*
> 
> ...


then why the need for the subsidies from the government?  I believe that was the discussion point.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 7, 2015)

As I have said many times..........any time AGW people start floating statistics on anything, your radar has to come up..........HUGE. Because they are very fond of creating a bogus sense of "growth" in any area's, but particularly in renewable energy!!!

Go check the RENIXX graph ( this is like the Dow Jones of renewable energy ) whenever you want to verify something on the state of renewables. Although 2014 saw a jump, 2015 has been very very flat in terms of growth and heres the thing.........current investment is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down from 2007 levels.

*But don't just take my word for it.........check the graph HERE >>>*

Renewable Energy Industry - wind power, solar energy, hydro power, biomass, fuel cells



The AGW crowd loves to throw out lots of gaudy stats thinking nobody will check them out.

But I do.........


And then the gut punch.........


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2015
> 
> Renewables Re-energized: Green Energy Investments Worldwide Surge 17% to $270 Billion in 2014*
> 
> ...



Hey Sparky seen the price of oil and gas lately?  Only an idiot would subsidize alternative to make it efficient


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2015
> 
> Renewables Re-energized: Green Energy Investments Worldwide Surge 17% to $270 Billion in 2014*
> 
> ...



Laughing at you rocks....we all know that you liberals call government spending "investments"....if renewables were actually a good investment, you could track their success on the stock market....we both know you can't...the only investment in green energy is coming from government.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2015
> ...



To liberal wackjobs....government spending on their pet projects is investment...


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 7, 2015)

Hey SSDD......check out the RENIXX graph!!! Laughable........especially when compared to 2007. And 2015 is flat as a pancake.


The AGW crowd has never even heard of it!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 7, 2015)

God I love this forum............winning..............winning............and winning!!!


----------

